[2008] KEHC 3237 (KLR)
The court held that for an application under Order 16, rule 5(c) to succeed, the defendant must show that the suit was actually removed from the hearing list and not set down for hearing within three months thereafter. In this case, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the suit was ever on the hearing list for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 3237 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kenya Power and Lighting Co. Ltd; Defendant: Kwetu Coffee Estate Ltd.
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1042 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 16 Rule 5, Setting Down for Hearing, Removal From Hearing List
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kenya Power and Lighting Co. Ltd
Plaintiff
Kwetu Coffee Estate Ltd.
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant has demonstrated that the suit was not set down for hearing within three months after removal from the hearing list under Order 16, rule 5(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether non-confirmation of a suit for hearing at the call-over constitutes removal from the hearing list for purposes of dismissal for want of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that for an application under Order 16, rule 5(c) to succeed, the defendant must show that the suit was actually removed from the hearing list and not set down for hearing within three months thereafter. In this case, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the suit was ever on the hearing list for 13th or 14th March, 2007, as it was never confirmed for hearing and thus never appeared on the list. Non-confirmation at the call-over does not amount to removal from the hearing list. Therefore, the application for dismissal was misconceived and lacked merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Orders
- The defendant's application for dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 1042 of 2003
KENYAPOWER AND LIGHTING CO. LTD ……………............PLAINTIFF
V E R S U S
KWETU COFFEE ESTATE LTD. …...…………………....…DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This is an application by the Defendant (by notice of motion dated 6th August, 2007) for dismissal of the Plaintiff’s suit for want of prosecution. It is brought under Order 16, rule 5(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules (the Rules). Under that provision, if, within three months after the removal of the suit from the hearing list, the plaintiff, or the court of its own motion on notice to the parties, does not set down the suit for hearing, the defendant may either set the suit down for hearing or apply for its dismissal. There is an affidavit sworn by one RUSTAM HIRA, the Defendant’s advocate, in support of the application.
The Plaintiff has opposed the application as set out in its grounds of opposition dated 25th January, 2008. In addition, there is a replying affidavit sworn by one GEOFFREY IMENDE, the Plaintiff’s advocate.
I have read the supporting and opposing affidavits. I have also given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsels appearing. The three scenarios for dismissal of a suit for want of prosecution under Order 16, rule 5 of the Rules are specific and particular:-
1. Where the suit has not been set down for hearing within three (3) months after close of pleadings (paragraph (a)).
2. Where the suit has not been set down for hearing within three (3) months after the removal of the suit from the hearing list(paragraph (c)).
3. Where the suit has not been set down for hearing within three (3) months after the adjournment of the suit generally (paragraph (d)).
The present application has been brought under paragraph (c); the Defendant must therefore demonstrate that the suit has not been set down for hearing within three (3) months after it was removed from the hearing list. It has not been shown that the suit came up for hearing on a particular day and was removed from the hearing list, and that thereafter it was not set down for hearing within three (3) months after that removal from the hearing list. What the Defendant has stated is that the suit was fixed for hearing for 13th and 14th March, 2007 but was not confirmed for hearing at the “call-over”. It is not stated when the “call-over” was conducted. Non-confirmation of a suit for hearing at the “call-over” is not, in my view, the same thing as its removal from the hearing list. The latter presupposes that a hearing list was prepared and published. That was not the case here. The case never appeared in the hearing list of either 13th or 14th March, 2007 because it was never confirmed for hearing for those dates; it thus could not have been, and was not, removed from the hearing lists of those two days.
For the above reason this application is misconceived and has no merit. It is hereby dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2008
H. P. G. WAWERU
J U D G E
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2008