[2016] KEHC 5258 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit since its application for injunction was dismissed on 18th November 2014. More than a year had elapsed without any action, and the Plaintiff failed to respond to the application for dismissal or appear in court despite being duly...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5258 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Pure Water Resources Ltd; Defendant: Kenya Commercial Bank; Defendant: 3rd Defendant; Defendant: 4th Defendant
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 248 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Award
- 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
Pure Water Resources Ltd
Plaintiff
Kenya Commercial Bank
Defendant
3rd Defendant
Defendant
4th Defendant
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 inaction by the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether costs should be awarded to the 3rd and 4th defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit since its application for injunction was dismissed on 18th November 2014. More than a year had elapsed without any action, and the Plaintiff failed to respond to the application for dismissal or appear in court despite being duly served. The court concluded that the Plaintiff had lost interest in the matter and that the continued pendency of the suit was not in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and awarded costs to the 3rd and 4th Defendants.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit herein is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs of the suit and of the application are awarded to the 3rd and 4th Defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL & ADMIRALTY DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 248 OF 2014
PURE WATER RESOURCES LTD ..................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK & 2 OTHERS ............ DEFENDANT
RULING OF THE COURT
1. The Notice of Motion application before the court is dated and filed herein on 11th December 2015, by the 3rd and 4th Defendants. The application seeks the following orders;
(i) That the suit herein be dismissed for want of prosecution.
(ii) That the Plaintiff/1st Respondent bear the costs of the suit and of this application.
2. The application is premised on the grounds set out therein and is supported by the affidavit of George Brian Akello sworn on 11th December 2015.
3. The 1st and 2nd Defendant support the application. The Plaintiff was served with the application through their advocates on record Messrs Mogire & Company Advocates. However, there is no response to the application. The affidavit of service was filed herein on 29th January 2016. This court therefore, being satisfied that the Plaintiff was duly served, allowed the applicant to proceed with the application in the absence of the Plaintiff.
4. I have carefully considered the application.
(i) The Plaintiff filed this suit on 12th June 2014 simultaneously with its Notice of Motion application of the same date.
(ii) The Plaintiff’s said application was heard on 25th July 2014 and dismissed by a ruling delivered by this court on 18th November 2014.
(iii) Since the dismissal of the aforesaid application the Plaintiff has not taken any step whatsoever in the suit.
(iv) It is more than 1 year since dismissal of the Plaintiff’s application.
(v) It is obvious that the Plaintiff is not interested in the suit and has no intention whatsoever of pursuing it to its logical conclusion.
(vi) The pendency of the suit has no further purpose, and is not in the interest of justice.
(vii) It is only just, expeditious and in the interest of all the parties that the suit be dismissed forthwith.
5. The court also noted, while dismissing the Plaintiffs application for injunction on 18th November 2014, that the Plaintiff was at liberty to pursue its claim for Damages, if any either in this suit or in any other suit. Now, since the Plaintiff has not take any action since 18th November 2014, it is the position of this court that the suit now services not useful purpose and should be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion application before the court is allowed. The suit herein is dismissed. Costs of this suit and costs of this application shall be for the 3rd and 4th Defendant/Applicant
Orders accordingly.
READ, DELIVERED AND DATED, AT NAIROBI THIS 15th DAY OF APRIL 2016.
E. K. O. OGOLA
JUDGE
Ruling Read in open court in the presence of:
No Appearance for Plaintiff
No Appearance for 1st & 2nd Defendants
Mr. Odhiambo for 3rd & 4th Defendants
Teresia – Court Clerk