[2007] KEHC 2777 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit since the dismissal of their application for an interlocutory injunction in January 2000. The only subsequent activity was at the instigation of the defendants in 2005, and since then, the plaintiff had not listed the suit for hearing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2777 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ragati Tea Factory Company Limited – Shareholders; Defendant: Johnson K. Gichuru; Defendant: Peter K. Mathenge; Defendant: Dunstan M. Ngumo; Defendant: Boniface G. Muhami; Defendant: Joseph M. Njogu; Defendant: William I. Ndugi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1801 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- GG Okwengu
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Interlocutory Injunctions
- 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
Ragati Tea Factory Company Limited – Shareholders
Plaintiff
Johnson K. Gichuru
Defendant
Peter K. Mathenge
Defendant
Dunstan M. Ngumo
Defendant
Boniface G. Muhami
Defendant
Joseph M. Njogu
Defendant
William I. Ndugi
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 the plaintiff has demonstrated any interest in prosecuting the suit after dismissal of the interlocutory injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit since the dismissal of their application for an interlocutory injunction in January 2000. The only subsequent activity was at the instigation of the defendants in 2005, and since then, the plaintiff had not listed the suit for hearing or responded to the current application. The absence of any response or attendance by the plaintiff confirmed their lack of interest in the matter. Accordingly, the court granted the defendants' application and dismissed the suit for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The notice of motion dated 17th August 2007 is granted.
- The plaintiff's suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Case 1801 of 1998
RAGATI TEA FACTORY COMPANY
LIMITED – SHAREHOLDERS..................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JOHNSON K. GICHURU………………………..………1ST DEFENDANT
PETER K. MATHENGE…………………….………….2ND DEFENDANT
DUNSTAN M. NGUMO…………………..…………….3RD DEFENDANT
BONIFACE G. MUHAMI…………………...…...……...4TH DEFENDANT
JOSEPH M. NJOGU……………………………………5TH DEFENDANT
WILLIAM I. NDUGI…………………………………...…6TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The defendants seek to have the plaintiff’s suit filed against them dismissed for want of prosecution. It is contended that plaintiff has taken no action to prosecute his suit since 14th January 2000, when his application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed. it is contended that the plaintiff’s interest in the suit was only to obtain injunctive relief and having failed to do so has lost interest in the matter despite having been duly served with this application, there was no response from the plaintiff nor was there any representation for the plaintiff at the hearing of the application.
I have carefully perused the court record and it is evident that the plaintiff has never taken any action to prosecute this suit since their application for injunction was dismissed. The last time the parties appeared before this court it was in the year 2005 at the instigation of the defendant who had filed an application to have the plaintiff’s plaint struck out.
That application was dismissed on 5th July 2005. The plaintiff has however, not bothered to have the suit listed for hearing. Indeed, the failure of the plaintiff to respond to this application or attend court clearly confirms their lack of interest in this matter. I do therefore grant notice of motion dated 17th August 2007, and issue orders as prayed.
Dated, signed and delivered this 30th day of November 2007.
H. M. OKWENGU
JUDGE