[2003] KEHC 74 (KLR)
The court found that although there was a period of inaction by the plaintiffs, this was directly attributable to the pending application by the defendants' counsel to withdraw from the matter. The plaintiffs could not reasonably proceed with the prosecution of the suit while that application was unresolved. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] KEHC 74 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kyalo Munyao; Plaintiff: Peter Muli; Plaintiff: Bernard Masai Kavoi; Defendant: Justus Ngila Mosa; Defendant: Mulei Matu; Defendant: Mutiso Kathuma; Defendant: Muasa Katiku
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 206 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs
- Judges
- RN Nambuye
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Orders, Withdrawal of Counsel
- 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
Kyalo Munyao
Plaintiff
Peter Muli
Plaintiff
Bernard Masai Kavoi
Plaintiff
Justus Ngila Mosa
Defendant
Mulei Matu
Defendant
Mutiso Kathuma
Defendant
Muasa Katiku
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inaction by the plaintiffs.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs were prevented from prosecuting the suit by the pending application for withdrawal by the defendants' counsel.
- 3 Whether the defendants can benefit from their own procedural actions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there was a period of inaction by the plaintiffs, this was directly attributable to the pending application by the defendants' counsel to withdraw from the matter. The plaintiffs could not reasonably proceed with the prosecution of the suit while that application was unresolved. The withdrawal application was only removed on 6.11.2002, after which the plaintiffs would have had an opportunity to act, but by then the application for dismissal had already been filed. The court held that the defendants, having caused the procedural delay, could not benefit from their own actions by seeking dismissal for want of prosecution. Accordingly, the application for...
Court Disposition
application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs
Orders
- The application dated 3.9.2002 for dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution is dismissed.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the plaintiff respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKO
CIVIL CASE NO. 206 OF 1998
KYALO MUNYAO
PETER MULI
BERNARD MASAI KAVOI ……………………………… PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
JUSTUS NGILA MOSA
MULEI MATU
MUTISO KATHUMA
MUASA KATIKU ………………………………………RESPONDENTS
R U L I N G
The defendants applicants have come to this court by way of notice of motion under order 16 rule 5(d) of the CPR and section 3A of the CPA seeking an order that the plaintiffs suit herein be dismissed for want of prosecution and that costs be paid to them. The grounds are set out in the body of the application, supporting affidavit and oral submissions in court and the major ones are that the suit was filed on 11. 8.1998. On 13. 8.98 an application for an injunction was filed seeking the reliefs indicated. The application was heard inter-parties and a ruling given on 27. 5.1999 dismissing the same. Since then no action was taken by the plaintiffs in the matter till 3. 9.2002 when the application under consideration was filed, that
· Page 2 Mark Mumo
a period of two years had lapsed without any action being taken by the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs have lost interest in the suit and the pendence of the same is duly oppressive to the defendants and it should be brought to an end, that the plaintiffs have not given any reasonable explanation for the delay, they rely on the authorities cited.
The plaintiffs responded through an affidavit filed by their advocate which is to the effect that no action was taken in the matter because on 23. 2.2000 the applicants counsel filed an application seeking to withdraw from the matter which application had not been disposed off by the time the current application was filed, that they could not list the matter for hearing before that application was disposed off, that the plaintiffs are interested in prosecuting the suit and that the applicants should not be allowed to benefit from their own mischief.
On the courts assessment of the facts herein it is clear that indeed no action was taken by the plaintiffs towards the prosecution of the suit from 27. 5.1999 until the application under consideration was filed. They have responded to that by saying that there was an intervening application filed by the defendants counsel seeking to withdraw from acting in the matter which they could not over reach and therefore they were not at fault.
· Page 3 Mark Mumo
I have perused the record and I find that indeed there is an application to withdraw filed by counsel currently appearing for the defendant seeking to withdraw from acting filed on 25. 2.00 dated 14. 2.2000. A perusal of the record further shows that the said application was withdrawn on 6. 11. 2002 long offer the current application had been filed in September, 2002. It is correctly submitted by the plaintiffs counsels that they could not overreach that application. As long as that application was pending the plaintiff could not take action in the matter. It was removed on 6. 11. 2002 and so the plaintiff had 3 months from 6. 11. 2002 to take action in the matter by which time the application under consideration had been filed which application was filed prematurely. It is correctly submitted by counsel for the plaintiffs that the applicants should not be allowed to benefit from their own wrong. They are the ones at fault.
The application dated 3. 9.2002 which was filed prematurely be and is hereby dismissed with costs to the plaintiff respondent.
· Page 4 Mark Mumo
Dated, read and delivered at Machakos this ………………. Day of …………….., 2003.
R. NAMBUYE
JUDGE