[2005] KEHC 2857 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over 49 months since it was last stood over generally. There was no opposition to the defendant's application, and no explanation was provided for the delay. The court held that the defendant's application was merited and that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 2857 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Munyu Industries (K) Limited; Defendant: The Liquidation Agent Pan African Credit & Finance Limited; Defendant: Marchet Auctioneers (K) Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 3019 of 1996
- 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
Munyu Industries (K) Limited
Plaintiff
The Liquidation Agent Pan African Credit & Finance Limited
Defendant
Marchet Auctioneers (K) Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to costs of the suit and the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over 49 months since it was last stood over generally. There was no opposition to the defendant's application, and no explanation was provided for the delay. The court held that the defendant's application was merited and that the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court further awarded costs to the defendant for both the suit and the application, emphasizing the importance of diligent prosecution of cases and the consequences of inordinate delay.
Court Disposition
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant.
Orders
- The plaintiff’s suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant for want of prosecution.
- The defendant is awarded the costs of the application dated 22nd March 2005.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL DIVISION, MILIMANI
CIVIL CASE NUMBER 3019 OF 1996
MUNYU INDUSTRIES (K) LIMITED ……….……………..…PLAINTIFF
VERSUS THE LIQUIDATION AGENT PAN AFRICAN CREDIT
& FINANCE LIMITED………………………….…………1STDEFENDANT
MARCHET AUCTIONEERS (K) LIMITED ……….…...2NDDEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The defendant’s application dated 22nd March 2005 is brought under Order 16 Rule 5 (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The defendant seeks an order that the plaintiff’s suit be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The plaintiff was served with the application on 7th April 2005 but by the time the matter came up for hearing, 16th May 2005, the plaintiff had not filed any reply thereof. Counsel who attended the hearing and who held brief for the plaintiff’s counsel prayed for an adjournment on the basis that plaintiff’s counsel was in the main registry High court in HCCC NO. 1111 of 2003 and because the parties were negociating in the absence of their advocate. That application for adjournment was rejected. When counsel for the defendant finished her submissions, the advocate appearing for the plaintiff did not respond to those submissions.
The defendants application is based on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to set down the suit for hearing to date since the case was stood over generally on 31st January 2001 and over 49 months had since lapsed. There was no opposition to this submission and I do therefore find that the application for dismissal is merited. The orders of this court therefore are:-
(1) That the plaintiff’s suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant for want of prosecution.
(2) That the defendant is awarded the costs fo the application dated 22nd March 2005.
Dated and delivered this 19th day of May 2005.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE