[2011] KEHC 3760 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over one and a half years since its filing. No explanation was offered for the delay, and the application for dismissal was unopposed. The court held that the delay was inordinate, inexcusable, and prejudicial to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 3760 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Leonard Joshua Ikarot & 4 Others; Defendant: Humphrey Ojilong Esuba & 2 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 10 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendants
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Court Discretion, Costs Award
- 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
Leonard Joshua Ikarot & 4 Others
Plaintiff
Humphrey Ojilong Esuba & 2 Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs' suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay.
- 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit was excusable or prejudicial to the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over one and a half years since its filing. No explanation was offered for the delay, and the application for dismissal was unopposed. The court held that the delay was inordinate, inexcusable, and prejudicial to the defendants, who should not be kept waiting indefinitely. Applying Order XVI Rule 5(1) and the principles from E.T. Monks Co Ltd v Evans, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, finding the application merited.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendants
Orders
- The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs awarded to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUNGOMA
CIVIL CASE NO.10 OF 2009
LEONARD JOSHUA IKAROT & 4 OTHERS:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
HUMPHREY OJILONG ESUBA & 2 OTHERS::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
In his notice of motion dated 1st July 2010 the 2nd and 3rd defendants seek for orders for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ suit for want of prosecution. The grounds in support are that since the filing of the suit, the Respondent has failed to take any steps to fix a hearing date. The Respondent has since filed another suit Bungoma CMCC No.20 of 2009 and removed caution placed on land parcel No.Malakisi/Mwalie/300.
The Respondent did not file a replying affidavit and this application was formally unopposed. He appeared in court in person but did not respond to the issues in question. He denied that Athunga & Co were his advocates and that the 3rd defendant ought to have been served with the papers of the case he alleges was filed.
The record shows that this suit was filed on the 03/02/09. The 2nd and 3rd defendants through their advocate Elungata & Co entered appearance and filed defence on the 18/02/09 and 06/03/09 respectively. The plaintiff has not fixed the suit for hearing or taken any steps to prosecute his case for over one and a half years.
Order XVI Rule 5(1) allows dismissal of a suit where the plaintiff has not taken action for a period of three months. When the Respondent was served with this application, he did not bother to reply to the allegations raised. It would be assumed that he had no reasonable explanation to offer for failure to prosecute his case.
It was held in the case of E.T. Monks Co Ltd Vs Evans HCCC No.77 of 1971 – Nairobi that for a court to exercise its discretion in allowing a sleepy plaintiff to fix his case for hearing, the plaintiff must show that the delay was not lengthy, inordinate or inexcusable. In the application before me, no reason for the delay was given. The delay of almost two years is by no reasonable standards lengthy. It is therefore inordinate, inexcusable and prejudicial to the defendants who have to keep waiting indefinitely.
I find the application merited and allow it as prayed. The plaintiffs’ suit is hereby dismissed with costs to the defendant.
F.N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
Ruling dated and delivered on the 9th day of March 2011 in the presence of Mr Elungata for Defendant/Applicant.
F.N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE