[2001] KEHC 158 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to take any step to prosecute the suit for several years since 1997. The explanation offered, namely the plaintiffs' inability to travel to Nairobi due to humble means, was deemed irrelevant and insufficient to justify the delay. The court emphasized that it is unfair...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 158 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Paul Sitienei & 13 Others; Defendant: John Kibeigo & 5 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 3404 of 1982
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 5th and 6th defendants.
- 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
Paul Sitienei & 13 Others
Plaintiff
John Kibeigo & 5 Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the plaintiffs.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs' inability to attend their advocate's office constitutes sufficient cause to excuse the delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to take any step to prosecute the suit for several years since 1997. The explanation offered, namely the plaintiffs' inability to travel to Nairobi due to humble means, was deemed irrelevant and insufficient to justify the delay. The court emphasized that it is unfair to allow defendants to remain in perpetual uncertainty due to the plaintiffs' inaction. Accordingly, the application by the 5th and 6th defendants to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution was allowed, with costs awarded to them.
Court Disposition
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 5th and 6th defendants.
Orders
- The 5th and 6th defendants' application dated 30th October, 2000 is allowed.
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO. 3404 OF 1982
PAUL SITIENEI & 13 OTHERS ………………………….PLAINTIFFS
- V E R S U S –
JOHN KIBEIGO & 5 OTHERS ………………………....DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G This suit was filed by the Plaintiffs on 9th October, 1982. It was last in this court on 3rd October, 1997. No step has been taken by the parties to set it down for hearing since then. On an application to have it dismissed for want of prosecution by the 5th and 6th Defendants, Mr. Mararo for the Plaintiffs argued that the delay had been caused by the Plaintiff’s inability to attend at his firm’s office. He said that his clients were people of humble means who are unable to travel to Nairobi from Eldoret where they live.
With all due respect, that is irrelevant. They filed this suit and if they cannot prosecute it, they cannot be allowed to have the Defendants live perpetually in fear of the outcome of that suit. That is unfair and cannot be allowed by this court.
I, therefore, allow the 5th and 6th Defendant’s application dated 30th October, 2000 with costs to them.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 23rd day of May, 2001.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE.