[2009] KEHC 871 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 871 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's notice of motion had not been prosecuted with due diligence and that there was a failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. The application for adjournment was refused, and the preliminary objection was upheld. Consequently, the application was dismissed both for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 871 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Neem Tree Resort Ltd; Defendant: African Centre for Human Advocacy (ACHA)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 492 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion and Preliminary Objection
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
FI Koome
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Preliminary Objection, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Preliminary Objection Costs Award

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neem Tree Resort Ltd

Plaintiff

African Centre for Human Advocacy (ACHA)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion and Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the application failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's notice of motion had not been prosecuted with due diligence and that there was a failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. The application for adjournment was refused, and the preliminary objection was upheld. Consequently, the application was dismissed both for want of prosecution and for non-compliance with the relevant procedural rules. Costs were awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 23.11.2007 is dismissed for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with mandatory procedural provisions.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.