[2011] KEHC 1577 (KLR)
The court found that the delay of 1 year and 3 months in prosecuting the suit was not inordinate given the plaintiff's personal circumstances, including medical and financial difficulties. The court further held that the defendants had not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the delay, such as loss of evidence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1577 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Patricia Njithi Wanyeki; Defendant: Kenyatta National Hospital; Defendant: The Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 449 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application for dismissal refused
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
- 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
Patricia Njithi Wanyeki
Plaintiff
Kenyatta National Hospital
Defendant
The Hon. Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the delay of 1 year and 3 months in prosecuting the suit warrants dismissal for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff's explanation for the delay is sufficient to excuse the delay.
- 3 Whether the defendants have suffered prejudice due to the delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the delay of 1 year and 3 months in prosecuting the suit was not inordinate given the plaintiff's personal circumstances, including medical and financial difficulties. The court further held that the defendants had not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the delay, such as loss of evidence or unavailability of witnesses. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the application for dismissal, emphasizing the importance of giving the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to prosecute her case.
Court Disposition
application for dismissal refused
Orders
- Application for dismissal for want of prosecution is refused with costs to the Defendant.
- Parties to file and exchange documents and witness statements within 30 days of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 449 OF 2009
PATRICIA NJITHI WANYEKI..................................................................... PLAINTIFF
V E R S U S
1. KENYATTA NATIONAL HOSPITAL)
2. THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ) ..........................................DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
This suit was filed on 19th August, 2009. The 1st Defendant entered appearance on 22nd September, 2009 and filed statement of defence on 9th October, 2009. On 27th October, 2009, the Plaintiff filed amended plaint. On 5th November, 2009 the 1st Defendant filed amended defence. On 19th November, 2009 the Plaintiff filed and served a reply to the amended defence. No further pleadings were filed. Pleadings therefore closed on 3rd December, 2009 (See Order 2, rule 13of theCivil Procedure Rules(theRules)).
The Plaintiff did not apply or take any step for over a year towards disposal of the suit. The Defendant therefore applied under Order 17, rule 2(1)and(3)of the Rules for dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.That application is by notice of motion dated 25th February, 2011. It is supported by an affidavit sworn by the 1st Defendant’s counsel.
Pleadings having closed on 3rd December, 2009 and the application for dismissal having been filed on 2nd March, 2011, the delay is one year and 3 months. What is the Plaintiff’s explanation for this delay?
The explanation is to be found in the replying affidavit sworn by her and filed on 9th May, 2011. That explanation is as follows. The Plaintiff gave birth in September, 2009 after a difficult pregnancy and delivery. She was overwhelmed by medical bills which she could not readily meet on account of loss of her job with the 1st Defendant. For the same reason she was unable to obtain proceedings and judgment in the criminal prosecution that gave rise to the present suit for malicious prosecution. She was thus unable to properly instruct her counsel.
The Plaintiff has also deponed that she has been relying on friends for donations to pay off her hospital bills. She further deponed that she is seeking further donation from well wishers in order to pay legal fees and also court fees for the proceedings and judgment in the criminal case.
Given the personal circumstances of the Plaintiff, I am not persuaded that the delay of 1 year and 3 months in the present case is inordinate. In any event, the 1st Defendant has not demonstrated any prejudice, for instance that it will no longer be able to secure documents or the attendance of witnesses in court during trial because of the passage of time. It is only just that the Plaintiff be given a reasonable chance to prosecute her suit.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels appearing (no authorities were cited), I will refuse the application with costs to the Defendant.
But I will direct that within 30 days of delivery of this ruling the parties shall file and exchange documents and witness statements. In this regard the parties shall have liberty to apply.
Those shall be the orders of the court.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2011.
H.P.G. WAWERU
JUDGE
SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2011