[2006] KEHC 2085 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for a period of 15 years since the close of pleadings. This inordinate delay was not explained or justified. The court held that such delay is prejudicial to the defendants and constitutes an abuse of the court process....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2085 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mary Wairimu Ndirangu; Defendant: Gerald Thuku; Defendant: Kenya Tea Development Authority Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 2895 of 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- JL Osiemo
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Personal Injury, Traffic Accident
- 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
Mary Wairimu Ndirangu
Plaintiff
Gerald Thuku
Defendant
Kenya Tea Development Authority Ltd
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 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for a period of 15 years since the close of pleadings. This inordinate delay was not explained or justified. The court held that such delay is prejudicial to the defendants and constitutes an abuse of the court process. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, with costs to the defendants.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- The plaintiff shall pay the costs of the suit and the application to the defendants.
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 2895 of 1991
MARY WAIRIMU NDIRANGU……………………………………….….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
GERALD THUKU……………………....………………………….1ST DEFENDANT
KENYA TEA DEVELOPMENT AAUTHORITY LTD…….......…2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
The defendant brought this application by way of Notice of motion under Order L Rule 1 of the Civil procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act seeking order that the plaintiffs’ suit be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The suit arises out of a traffic accident which occurred on the 8th June 1988 at about 6. 30 p.m at Chinga Factory when the plaintiff was walking along a path at the Factory and was sandwitched between the building along the said path and the lorry registration NO.KVR 531 owned by the 2nd defendant and driven by the 1st defendant along the said road. As a result of the said accident the plaintiff sustained injuries. She filed this suit against the two defendants on 7th June 1991.
The defendants were served with summons and filed their defence on 15th September 1992. Since the pleadings were closed on 15th September 1992, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to fix down the suit for hearing.
The defendants apply to have the suit dismissed for want of prosecution. No steps have been taken since 16th September 1992 which is a period of 15 years. The defendants application is allowed and the suit is hereby dismissed under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules with costs of the suit as well this application.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 9th day of June, 2006.
J.L.A. OSIEMO
JUDGE