[2013] KEHC 6487 (KLR)
The court found that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of seven years between the last effort by the ex-parte applicant to trace the court file and the issuance of the dismissal notice. The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient interest or diligence in prosecuting the matter, and there was no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 6487 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Kenya Revenue Authority, Commissioner of Customs & Excise; Applicant: Internet Trade Connection (K) Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 575 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Judicial Review Procedure, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
- 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
Kenya Revenue Authority, Commissioner of Customs & Excise
Respondent
Internet Trade Connection (K) Ltd
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to prolonged inaction by the ex-parte applicant.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow the matter to proceed despite the delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of seven years between the last effort by the ex-parte applicant to trace the court file and the issuance of the dismissal notice. The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient interest or diligence in prosecuting the matter, and there was no material before the court to justify exercising discretion in the applicant's favour. The absence of any meaningful steps to progress the case over such a prolonged period warranted dismissal for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The matter is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION
MISC. APPL. NO. 575 OF 2004
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC ........................................................................ APPLICANT
AND
KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE ........ RESPONDENT
EX-PARTE
INTERNET TRADE CONNECTION (K) LTD
RULING
This matter is coming up for the ex-parte applicant to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The matter was commenced by an application for leave to apply for orders of judicial review which was granted on 12th May 2004. The matter was adjourned generally on 5th December 2005 and no step was taken to prosecute the matter causing the court to notify the ex-parte applicant of its intention to dismiss the suit.
The ex-parte applicant has filed an affidavit of one P. M. Gichuru, the advocate on record seized with the matter where he depones that the court file went missing in 2005 and the firm made efforts to trace it. By a letter of 9th February 2007 they sought assistance from the Deputy Registrar but this was not forthcoming.
When the matter came up for showing cause on 5th August 2013, Counsel applied for an adjournment and by an email dated the same day wrote to the client to get in touch regarding the matter. Mr Muchoki, who appeared before me, requested 30 days to get instructions from the client to prosecute the matter.
Whether or not to dismiss a matter for want of prosecution is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the court based on pleaded facts. In my view, there is a yawning gap between the last effort made by the applicant to seek assistance to locate the court file on 13th February 2007 to the time they were woken up from their slumber by the dismissal notice. This is a period of seven years. Seven years of unexpected action.
The ex-parte applicant ought to have prosecuted the suit with alacrity and indeed if it was interested, it would have contacted the advocate. I also note that contrary to what was stated in the letter to the Deputy Registrar, the matter was not part heard before Ibrahim J.
There is no material for me to exercise discretion in the ex-parte applicant’s favour. The matter is dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs.
DELIVERED and DATED at NAIROBI this 8th August 2013
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE
Mr Muchoki instructed by Ahmednasir Abdikadir and Company Advocates for the ex-parte applicant.