[2012] KEHC 2407 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 2407 (KLR)

The court found that, although there were periods of inactivity, the Plaintiff's conduct did not amount to inordinate or inexcusable delay warranting dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. The record showed that both parties had taken steps to fix hearing dates and that the suit had remained active, including attempts at out-of-court settlement. The interim orders in question had already lapsed on 10th April 2008 and were not extended thereafter, making the request to vary or set aside them moot. The Defendant's application was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 2407 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: The New Big Tree Beach Resort Limited; Defendant: Integer Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
30 August 2012
Case Number
Civil Case 18 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Suit for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Judges
AI Tullu
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Interim Orders, Tenant Landlord Disputes, Variation of Orders
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Interim Orders Tenant Landlord Disputes Variation of Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The New Big Tree Beach Resort Limited

Plaintiff

Integer Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Suit for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the interim orders issued on 24th May 2007 should be varied or set aside.
  3. 3 Whether there was inordinate delay in prosecuting the Chamber Summons dated 24th May 2007.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although there were periods of inactivity, the Plaintiff's conduct did not amount to inordinate or inexcusable delay warranting dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. The record showed that both parties had taken steps to fix hearing dates and that the suit had remained active, including attempts at out-of-court settlement. The interim orders in question had already lapsed on 10th April 2008 and were not extended thereafter, making the request to vary or set aside them moot. The Defendant's application was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion application dated 28th October 2009 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.