[2021] KEHC 9251 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 9251 (KLR)

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

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 9251 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Defendant: Trident Insurance Company Limited; Applicant: Accounting Officer, County Assembly of Nyamira; Applicant: AG Clerk, County Assembly of Nyamira
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E1134 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
Judicial Review, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Public Procurement, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Judicial Review Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Public Procurement Service of Process

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

Public Procurement Administrative Review Board

Respondent

Trident Insurance Company Limited

Defendant

Accounting Officer, County Assembly of Nyamira

Applicant

AG Clerk, County Assembly of Nyamira

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 Respondent and Interested Party with the application and submissions.
  2. 2 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the ex parte Applicants failed to comply with its directive to serve the Respondent and Interested Party with the Chamber Summons application and submissions. As there was no evidence of compliance or steps taken to prosecute 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.