[2004] KEHC 1986 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit since November 2002 and failed to provide credible evidence that the court file was missing or that they made efforts to set the matter down for hearing. The absence of the plaintiffs or their counsel at the hearing of the application...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1986 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Patrick Rimo and 29 Others; Defendant: Kenya Ports Authority
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 287 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Case Management
- 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
Patrick Rimo and 29 Others
Plaintiff
Kenya Ports Authority
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inaction by the plaintiffs.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in prosecuting the case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit since November 2002 and failed to provide credible evidence that the court file was missing or that they made efforts to set the matter down for hearing. The absence of the plaintiffs or their counsel at the hearing of the application further indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the suit. Consequently, the court was satisfied that the plaintiffs were no longer interested in the matter and allowed the defendant's application to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs awarded to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CIVIL SUIT NO. 287 OF 2001
PATRICK RIMO AND 29 OTHERS …………………….. PLAINTIFFS
Versus
KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY ………………………….. DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This is an application brought under Order 16 Rule of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking to dismiss this suit for want of prosecution. The application is based on the grounds that since 14th November 2002 the plaintiffs have not taken any step to prosecute this case and also that the plaintiffs are not interested in this case any more their kiosks having been demolished by the Municipal Council of Mombasa. The application was served upon counsel for the plaintiffs who filed a replying affidavit and grounds of opposition. But they did not appear during the hearing of the application to oppose it.
The only ground raised in the replying affidavit is that the plaintiffs could not take a hearing date because the court file went missing. There is however nothing to show that the court file was not traceable or the plaintiffs made any effort to fix the case for hearing but could not trace the file. Having failed to attend and oppose this application I am satisfied that the plaintiffs are no longer interested in this suit. I therefore allow this application and dismiss this suit for want of prosecution. Costs to the defendant.
DATED this 17th day of March 2004.
D.K. Maraga
Ag. JUDGE