https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7464

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **COMMERCIAL AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION** **HCCC NO. 154 OF 2014** **ELIAB MUTURI MWANGI** **Practicing in the name and style of** **Muturi Mwangi & Associates Advocates……………...……………..PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **LSG LUFTHANSA SERVICES EUROPA AFRICA……….…….1ST DEFENDANT** **LSG SKY CHEFS KENYA LIMITED…………………….….…2ND DEFENDANT** **RULING** **Introduction** 1. The Defendants moved this Court by way of a Notice of Motion dated 26th November 2025, brought under Order 17 Rule 2 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking the dismissal of this suit for want of prosecution with costs. 2. The application is premised on the grounds that the suit was instituted by the Plaintiff, practising under the name and style of Muturi Mwangi & Associates Advocates, vide a plaint dated 23rd April 2014, to which the Defendants filed a joint defence dated 17th July 2014. 3. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff has failed to take any meaningful steps to prosecute the suit, the last recorded court attendance having been on **4th August 2021**. 4. Further, the Defendants had previously filed an application dated **26th July 2024** seeking dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. In a ruling delivered on **21st October 2025**, this Court declined to dismiss the suit but directed the Plaintiff to take a further step towards progressing the matter within **fourteen (14) days**, failing which the Defendants would be at liberty to renew their application. 5. The Defendants aver that the said period lapsed on **4th November 2025** without compliance, and no action was taken by the Plaintiff to advance the suit. 6. Consequently, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiff has demonstrated a lack of interest in prosecuting the claim, and that the continued pendency of the suit is prejudicial, unfair, and contrary to the interests of justice. 7. At the time of writing this ruling, the Plaintiff had not filed any response to the present application, despite proof of service as demonstrated in the affidavit of service sworn on **10th November 2025**. **Analysis and Determination** 1. I have considered the application, the grounds therein, and the record of the Court. 2. It is not in dispute that the Defendants had earlier filed an application dated **26th July 2024** seeking dismissal of this suit for want of prosecution. Upon considering that application, this Court declined to grant the sought orders in a ruling delivered on **21st October 2025**, and instead issued the following directive: “The Plaintiff shall, within fourteen (14) days from today, file and serve a suitable Notice to take a further step in the suit, failing which the Defendant shall be at liberty to renew the application for dismissal.” 1. From the material on record, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the said directive. There is no evidence that any step was taken within the stipulated period or at all thereafter to progress the matter. 2. In the circumstances, the Defendants were justified in filing the present application seeking dismissal of the suit. 3. The principles governing dismissal for want of prosecution are well settled. In *Nilesh Premchand Mulji Shah & Another t/a Ketan Emporium v M.D. Popat and Others & Another [2014] eKLR*, the Court held: “Nonetheless, Article 159 of the Constitution and Order 17 Rule 2(3) give the court the discretion to dismiss the suit where no action has been taken for one year... That discretion must be exercised... having regard to whether the delay is inordinate, unreasonable, inexcusable, and likely to cause serious prejudice to the defendant.” 1. I am in agreement with the above holding. In the present case, the Plaintiff’s inaction is clearly **inordinate, unexplained, and inexcusable**. More significantly, the Plaintiff failed to comply with a direct court order intended to facilitate the expeditious disposal of the suit. 2. The suit has been pending since **2014**, a period of over a decade. Such delay is manifestly prejudicial to the Defendants and undermines the overriding objective of the Court to facilitate the just, expeditious, and efficient disposal of disputes. 3. Litigation must come to an end, and a party who institutes proceedings bears the primary responsibility of prosecuting them. 4. In the premises, I find that the Defendants’ application is meritorious. 5. Accordingly, this suit is hereby **dismissed for want of prosecution** under **Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules**. 6. The **Defendants are awarded costs** of both the application and the suit. 7. It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026** **** **HON. MR. JUSTICE MOSES ADO *Judge of the High Court*** **In the Presence of:** *Moses C/A* *Ms. Gathimba…………………for the Applicant* *Omondi……………for the Respondent*