[2004] KEHC 303 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over three months after adjournment, despite notice being issued. This inaction satisfied the requirements of Order XVI rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court concluded that the continued pendency of the suit without...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 303 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Margaret Wanjiru Kuria; Defendant: Eliud Njoroge Kuria
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 451 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, 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
Margaret Wanjiru Kuria
Plaintiff
Eliud Njoroge Kuria
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 under Order XVI rule 5.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff failed to take steps to prosecute the suit within the prescribed period.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over three months after adjournment, despite notice being issued. This inaction satisfied the requirements of Order XVI rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court concluded that the continued pendency of the suit without prosecution was prejudicial to the defendant and that the plaintiff had not provided any justification for the delay. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and awarded costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs awarded to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 451 of 1999
MARGARET WANJIRU KURIA…………..…….......………………….PLAINTIFF
Versus
ELIUD NJOROGE KURIA……………………..………………….RESPONDENT
RULING
This Ruling determines the Notice of Motion dated 21st October 2003 filed by the defendant. He has sought for the orders dimissing the suit for want of prosecution.
The suit was filed on 5th March 1999 and the plaintiff has not taken any steps to prosecute the matter. The defendant complains that the continued pending of the suit causes him prejudice. The application is supported by the applicant’s affidavit whereby he has detailed the reasons why the suit should be dismissed. The applicant relied on the provisions of Order XVI rule 5 which provides as follows:
“If within three months after the adjournment of the suit generally, 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.”
I am satisfied that the plaintiff failed to take action to prosecute the suit for a period of over 3 months the notice was duly issued to the plaintiff and no action has been taken. I accordingly dismiss the suit for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant/applicant.
It is so ordered.
Ruling read and signed on 10th December 2004.
MARTHA KOOME
JUDGE