[2024] KEHC 12110 (KLR)
The court found that no step had been taken in the matter for over four years since March 2020, which is far beyond the one-year threshold set by Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The delay was unexplained and inexcusable, and both parties failed to attend court or move the matter forward. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 12110 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Samuel Gathogo Mwangi; Plaintiff: Hyperteck Electrical Services Ltd; Defendant: Consolidated Bank Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 16 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- RC Rutto
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Inactivity, Judicial Discretion, Order 17 Rule 2, Delay in Litigation
- 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
Samuel Gathogo Mwangi
Plaintiff
Hyperteck Electrical Services Ltd
Plaintiff
Consolidated Bank Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inactivity for over four years.
- 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the matter is inordinate and inexcusable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that no step had been taken in the matter for over four years since March 2020, which is far beyond the one-year threshold set by Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The delay was unexplained and inexcusable, and both parties failed to attend court or move the matter forward. The court emphasized the need for expeditious litigation and held that a four-year period of inactivity is excessive and unjustified. Exercising its discretion, the court dismissed the suit for want of prosecution, holding that justice requires parties to be diligent and that the court cannot countenance such prolonged inactivity.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- This suit is dismissed forthwith.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Mwangi & another v Consolidated Bank Limited (Civil Suit 16 of 2019) [2024] KEHC 12110 (KLR) (Civ) (3 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 12110 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Civil Suit 16 of 2019
RC Rutto, J
October 3, 2024
Between
Samuel Gathogo Mwangi
1st Plaintiff
Hyperteck Electrical Services Ltd
2nd Plaintiff
and
Consolidated Bank Limited
Defendant
Ruling
1. This matter was listed for Notice to show cause.
2. A perusal of the file show that that last time this matter was actively in court was on 11th March, 2020 approximately four years ago when M/s Wambu informed the court that they had just come on record for the bank/defendant. They also informed court that the plaintiff advocate never served the defendant. The matter was set out for mention on 30th April 2020 for further directions. However, since then, the parties have not made any attempt to move the court and or set out the matter for hearing.
3. Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules – gives this court the powers to dismiss a case where no step has been taken by either of the party for a period of one year. In this case no step has been taken for a period of over four years. Clearly, this is inexcusable.
4. Further, this court takes not that this is a 2019 matter which means it has been in court for a period of 5 years. Notably, litigation must be expedited and concluded by parties who seek justice. They must be seen to be actively involved in their matter and dispute. Any delay should not be unreasonable and in-ordinate.
5. This court therefore finds that an inactive the period of 4 years is too long. The period and remains unexplained due to the continuous non-attendance by parties.
6. In the circumstances, I proceed to exercise discretion and proceed to dismiss the action forthwith. I am also guided by the case of Investment Limited vs G4S Security Services (2015) eKLR and proceed to make the following orders;1. This suit is dismissed forthwith.2. Each party shall bear its own costs.Orders accordingly.
RHODA RUTTOJUDGEDELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED ON 3RD THIS DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 AT NAIROBIFor Plaintiff– N/AFor Defendants-N/ACourt Assistant– Peter Wabwire