[2013] KEHC 6816 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute her suit for over two years after previously being granted indulgence by the court. The explanation given—failing health—was unsupported by any medical evidence or documentation. The court held that the delay was inordinate and had not been...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 6816 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nancy Wambui Wambugu; Defendant: Holy Cross Parish; Defendant: Father Andrew Massawe; Defendant: John Cardinal Njue
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 422 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Court Discretion, 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
Nancy Wambui Wambugu
Plaintiff
Holy Cross Parish
Defendant
Father Andrew Massawe
Defendant
John Cardinal Njue
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 due to inordinate and unexplained delay.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has provided sufficient justification for the delay in prosecuting the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute her suit for over two years after previously being granted indulgence by the court. The explanation given—failing health—was unsupported by any medical evidence or documentation. The court held that the delay was inordinate and had not been credibly explained. Given that the plaintiff had already escaped dismissal once and had not demonstrated diligence thereafter, there was no justification for the suit to continue pending against the defendants. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and awarded costs to the defendants.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The plaintiff's suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The defendants shall have costs of the suit, including the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBICIVIL DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO 422 OF 2008
NANCY WAMBUI WAMBUGU.........................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. HOLY CROSS PARISH
2. FATHER ANDREW MASSAWE
3. JOHN CARDINAL NJUE........................................DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
1. This is an application by the Defendants (notice of motion dated 27th August 2013) for dismissal of the Plaintiff’s suit for want of prosecution. It is brought under Order 17, rule 2 (1) & (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (the Rules).
2. The grounds for the application stated on the face thereof are –
That since close of pleadings on 7th November 2008 (more than four (4) years ago) the Plaintiff has not taken any steps to prosecute her suit.
That the indefinite pendency of the suit is “highly prejudicial” to the Defendant.
3. There is a supporting affidavit sworn by the 2nd Defendant. It sets out the history of the litigation, including a previous similar application by the Defendants which was refused by the Court (Maraga, J) on 6th April 2011. The Court then was satisfied that the delay in prosecuting the case was attributable to internal problems “in the Plaintiff’s advocate’s office. The Court felt that the Plaintiff should be given a chance to prosecute her suit.
4. More than two (2) years down the line the suit still has not been prosecuted, and hence the new application by the Defendants.
5. Part of the Plaintiff’s response to the application was to file chamber summons dated 27th September 2013 for leave to amend the plaint, which is pending. But she also filed a replying affidavit sworn by her on 27th September 2013. The Plaintiff attributes this further delay in prosecuting her suit (from 6th April 2011) to her “failing health during the period of inaction”. No medical report or other evidence of this “failing health” has been exhibited. Had there been such evidence I would have been inclined to exercise the Court’s discretion in her favour a second time, given the nature of her suit.
6. Regrettably, even after indulgence once before by the Court, the Plaintiff has not taken any step for a further two years plus to prosecute her suit. This is inordinate delay in the circumstances that has not been credibly explained. Having escaped once from dismissal of her case for want of prosecution the Plaintiff ought to have been more active in prosecution of the same. There is now no justification for this case to continue hanging over the Defendants’ heads.
7. I will allow the notice of motion dated 27th August 2013. The Plaintiff’s suit is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. The Defendants shall have costs of the suit (including the application). It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013
H.P.G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013