[2006] KEHC 2673 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit for more than three months since the last court appearance on 7th April 2005. In accordance with Order 16 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, this period of inactivity qualified the suit for dismissal for want of prosecution. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2673 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mathews Sankok Shompa; Defendant: Kenya Commercial Bank Limited; Defendant: Cash Crop Auctioneers; Defendant: Samuel Njenga Kanyoro; Defendant: Nairobi Pool Table (K) Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 529 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit against the 1st and 2nd defendants dismissed for want of prosecution; costs awarded to 1st and 2nd defendants.
- 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
Mathews Sankok Shompa
Plaintiff
Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
Defendant
Cash Crop Auctioneers
Defendant
Samuel Njenga Kanyoro
Defendant
Nairobi Pool Table (K) Limited
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 16 Rule 5.
- 2 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants are entitled to costs of the suit and the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit for more than three months since the last court appearance on 7th April 2005. In accordance with Order 16 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, this period of inactivity qualified the suit for dismissal for want of prosecution. The absence of any opposition or appearance by the plaintiff further justified the dismissal. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit against the 1st and 2nd defendants and awarded them costs of the suit and the application.
Court Disposition
Suit against the 1st and 2nd defendants dismissed for want of prosecution; costs awarded to 1st and 2nd defendants.
Orders
- The suit as against the 1st and 2nd defendants is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The 1st and 2nd defendants are awarded costs of the suit and costs of the Notice of Motion dated 9th March 2006.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Case 529 of 2004
MATHEWS SANKOK SHOMPA ……………...........................……...……….….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED……............................…...…..1ST DEFENDANT
CASH CROP AUCTIONEERS……………….........................…….……2ND DEFENDANT
SAMUEL NJENGA KANYORO………………...........................…..……3RD DEFENDANT
NAIROBI POOL TABLE (K) LIMITED……............................………..…4TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The 1st and 2nd defendants have moved this court with a Notice of Motion application seeking for this suit to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The plaintiff was served with the application and on the day of hearing had not filed any papers in opposition nor was there any appearance made on his behalf.
This matter was last in court on 7th April 2005 for the hearing of the plaintiff’s application for an injunction dated 6th December 2004. on 7th April 2005 the plaintiffs application was stood over generally to enable the plaintiff join other parties to this action. Since that date the plaintiff has not fixed this matter for hearing. That period of non activity is more than three months and accordingly this suit as per Order 16 Rule 5 does qualify to being dismissed for want of prosecution.
The court therefore grants the following orders: -
(1) That this suit as against the 1st and 2nd defendant is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
(2) That 1st and 2nd defendants are awarded costs of the suit and costs of the Notice of Motion dated 9th March 2006.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Dated and delivered this 28th April 2006
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE