[2014] KEHC 862 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 862 (KLR)

The court found that although there had been a period of inactivity since the last action in March 2013, the plaintiff had not been sufficiently idle to warrant dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff had appointed new advocates who made efforts to have the matter listed for hearing, but those efforts had not yet yielded results. The court exercised its discretion to give the plaintiff another chance to prosecute the suit, finding that the delay was not inordinate or inexcusable under the circumstances. However, the court awarded costs to the defendant for bringing the application, to be paid before the matter is listed for hearing within the next 45 days.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 862 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Paragon Electronics Ltd; Defendant: Samsung Electronics Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 December 2014
Case Number
Civil Case 171 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Award
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Costs Award

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paragon Electronics Ltd

Plaintiff

Samsung Electronics Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inactivity for over one year.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's efforts to prosecute the suit are sufficient to avoid dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to costs for bringing the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there had been a period of inactivity since the last action in March 2013, the plaintiff had not been sufficiently idle to warrant dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff had appointed new advocates who made efforts to have the matter listed for hearing, but those efforts had not yet yielded results. The court exercised its discretion to give the plaintiff another chance to prosecute the suit, finding that the delay was not inordinate or inexcusable under the circumstances. However, the court awarded costs to the defendant for bringing the application, to be paid before the matter is listed for hearing within the next 45 days.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 14th August 2014 is dismissed.
  • The defendant/applicant is awarded costs assessed at Kshs.7,000, to be paid before the matter is listed for hearing in the next 45 days.