[2010] KEHC 3606 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had failed to prosecute the application since its filing in 2003, despite multiple opportunities and clear directions from the court. The applicant had also failed to comply with previous orders, including serving the application on the relevant parties and taking hearing dates....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 3606 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Kaplamai L.D.T (Zablon Aswenje, Richard Leitich, Patrick John Okiru); Respondent: SPM’s Court Kitale; Interested Party: Enock Bulimo, Jane Osinde Odanga, Stephen Wanjala, Augustino Wanjala, Richard Kisia, Charles Wafula, Timothy Paula, Stephen Khayanga & 5 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 50 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- CA Ombija
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Abuse of Court Process, Delay in Prosecution
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Kaplamai L.D.T (Zablon Aswenje, Richard Leitich, Patrick John Okiru)
Respondent
SPM’s Court Kitale
Respondent
Enock Bulimo, Jane Osinde Odanga, Stephen Wanjala, Augustino Wanjala, Richard Kisia, Charles Wafula, Timothy Paula, Stephen Khayanga & 5 Others
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to prolonged inactivity by the applicant.
- 2 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause to prevent dismissal of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had failed to prosecute the application since its filing in 2003, despite multiple opportunities and clear directions from the court. The applicant had also failed to comply with previous orders, including serving the application on the relevant parties and taking hearing dates. The court concluded that the applicant was abusing the process and playing for time, and no sufficient cause was shown to justify keeping the suit alive. Accordingly, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
application dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The application dated 10th June 2003 is dismissed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION 50 OF 2003
REPUBLIC.....................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
KAPLAMAI L.D.T comprising of
1. ZABLON ASWENJE
2. RICHARD LEITICH
3. PATRICK JOHN OKIRU
SPM’S COURT KITALE....................2ND RESPONDENT
1. ENOCK BULIMO
2. JANE OSINDE ODANGA
3. STEPHEN WANJALA
4. AUGUSTINO WANJALA
5. RICHARD KISIA
6. CHARLES WAFULA
7. TIMOTHY PAULA
8. STEPHEN KHAYANGA& 5 OTHERS:::::::::::::::::::::::::INTERESTED PARTY
R U L I N G
On the 10th day of December, 2003 the honourable court issued a Notice to Show Cause under order XV1 Rule 2(1) why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The said notice was served on the 22nd day of December 2009 per the affidavit of Monica Njuguna filed herein.
When the Notice to Show Cause came up for hearing Mr M. Wafula, for the applicant urged me to spare the suit. The thrust of his argument is that he was served with the application on 22nd December 2009. He tried to contact his client in vain. Accordingly he could not respond to the application without the in put of his client by way of evidence.
I have perused the court record and find as a fact that;
1. The application was filed on 11th June 2003.
2. Since then it has come up for hearing severally, to wit, 8. 6.2004,10. 11. 04,18. 1.04,18. 1.05,2. 3.05,10. 5.05,6. 6.05.
On 17th October, 2006 the court observed that;
“ I note that over 2 years on 8th June 2004 I observed that the ex-parte applicant herein was abusing the stay orders given to them by the court. Todate they have not served the application on Mr Kaosa as earlier on ordered by the court. They continue to abuse the stay order. This court should not assist the ex-parte applicant to continue disregarding court orders as he plays for time. In the result although I note that Mr Sayeni had just been instructed, I will give the orders I should have given 8 years ago. Those orders are to the effect that the stay orders granted herein pursuant to the leave of the court are hereby vacated. Let the ex-parte applicant now serve the application on Mr Kaosa within 7 days of today and take another hearing date from the Registry. The matter is S.O.G”
The demeanour of the applicant is well captured in the letter and spirit of the order hereinabove quoted.
Todate there is no cause shown to me why the application should not be dismissed. The applicant has been abusing the process of the court all along.
The application dated 10th June 2003 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Dated and delivered at Kitale this 1ST day of FEBRUARY 2010.
N.R.O. OMBIJA
JUDGE
Mr Wasike for J.M. Wafula