[2021] KEHC 9324 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 9324 (KLR)

The court found that the ex parte Applicants failed to comply with its directive to serve the Respondents with the Chamber Summons application and submissions. As there was no evidence of compliance or prosecution of the matter, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 9324 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Attorney General; Respondent: Principal Secretary Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Services; Respondent: Nairobi County Director of Social Services; Respondent: Alexander Hoops Shihemi; Applicant: Peter Njoroge Kanika & Peter Gitau Muiruri, Trustees O/B of Sowesava Self Help Group
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E079 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
P Nyamweya
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Judicial Review Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Judicial Review Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Principal Secretary Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Services

Respondent

Nairobi County Director of Social Services

Respondent

Alexander Hoops Shihemi

Respondent

Peter Njoroge Kanika & Peter Gitau Muiruri, Trustees O/B of Sowesava Self Help Group

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte Applicants complied with the court's directive to serve the Respondents with the application and submissions.
  2. 2 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the ex parte Applicants failed to comply with its directive to serve the Respondents with the Chamber Summons application and submissions. As there was no evidence of compliance or prosecution of the matter, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. The dismissal was made without an order as to costs, and the Deputy Registrar was directed to notify the parties accordingly.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • No order as to costs.