[2019] KEHC 5178 (KLR)
The court found that the ex parte applicants failed to provide any sufficient explanation for the inordinate delay in prosecuting their judicial review application. The applicants did not take any steps to advance the matter from 2015 to 2018, and even after their counsel sought to cease acting, no further action...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 5178 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Registrar of Companies; Applicant: Charles Olare Chebet; Applicant: Richard Kipkoech Bundotic; Interested Party: Kipkoech Chebet Cherutich; Interested Party: Kipkutol Korir; Interested Party: Simon Kipchumba Kandie; Interested Party: Philip Sirma Cheptumo; Interested Party: Jackton Tuitoek; Interested Party: Kipkulei Chelelgo; Interested Party: Kiprotich Chepkotei; Interested Party: James Tomno; Interested Party: Kiptingilen Kiberenge; Interested Party: Cherutich Cherop (Chelitwa); Interested Party: Grace Chelangat; Interested Party: Veronica Mangara
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 10 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- RB Ngetich
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Mandamus and Prohibition, 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
Registrar of Companies
Respondent
Charles Olare Chebet
Applicant
Richard Kipkoech Bundotic
Applicant
Kipkoech Chebet Cherutich
Interested Party
Kipkutol Korir
Interested Party
Simon Kipchumba Kandie
Interested Party
Philip Sirma Cheptumo
Interested Party
Jackton Tuitoek
Interested Party
Kipkulei Chelelgo
Interested Party
Kiprotich Chepkotei
Interested Party
James Tomno
Interested Party
Kiptingilen Kiberenge
Interested Party
Cherutich Cherop (Chelitwa)
Interested Party
Grace Chelangat
Interested Party
Veronica Mangara
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex parte applicants provided sufficient explanation for the delay in prosecuting the judicial review application.
- 2 Whether the matter should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the ex parte applicants failed to provide any sufficient explanation for the inordinate delay in prosecuting their judicial review application. The applicants did not take any steps to advance the matter from 2015 to 2018, and even after their counsel sought to cease acting, no further action was taken. The court emphasized that litigation must come to an end and that it is the responsibility of litigants to ensure their cases are prosecuted. In the absence of any explanation for the delay, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for want of prosecution, with costs to the respondent and interested parties.
Court Disposition
dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs awarded to the respondent and interested parties.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
JUDICIAL REVIEW MISC. CIVIL APP. NO.10 OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF LAW REFORM ACT CAP 26 LAWS OF KENYA
-AND-
IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT CAP 21 LAWS OF KENYA AND THE RULES
-AND-
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT CAP 486 LAWS OF KENYA
-AND-
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO BRING JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS OF PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
-BETWEEN-
REPUBLIC............................................................................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES....................................................RESPONDENT
CHARLES OLARE CHEBET )
RICHARD KIPKOECH BUNDOTIC).......................EXPARTE APPLICANTS
-BETWEEN-
KIPKOECH CHEBET CHERUTICH
KIPKUTOL KORIR
SIMON KIPCHUMBA KANDIE
PHILIP SIRMA CHEPTUMO
JACKTON TUITOEK
KIPKULEI CHELELGO
KIPROTICH CHEPKOTEI .........................................INTERESTED PARTIES
JAMES TOMNO
KIPTINGILEN KIBERENGE
CHERUTICH CHEROP (CHELITWA)
GRACE CHELANGAT
VERONICA MANGARA
RULING
Record show that the exparte applicant filed application for leave to institute Judicial Review proceedings on 31st March, 2015. Leave of 21 days was granted on 9th April, 2015. The court also granted an order that leave granted do operate as stay.
On 30th January, 2018 the firm of Olonyi took a date for the substantive application dated 21st April, 2015 for hearing on 19th February, 2018. On 19th February, 2018 Mr. Olonyi informed court that he did not serve the other parties due to want of instruction. Application to cease acting was filed by the firm of Olonyi on 5th March, 2018.
In respect of the substantive application, no action was taken between 24th April, 2015 when it was filed, up to 30th January, 2018 when a date was taken. The counsel for the applicant also failed to take a date for application filed on 5th March, 2018.
Counsel in court today has indicated that no instructions were flowing from client to the advocate thus the delay. There is no explanation for their failure as well to prosecute their application to cease acting.
My view is that cases belong to litigants and they have a duty to follow up with their advocates to know their position, and ensure that they are prosecuted. No explanation has been given as to why the exparte applicant has not taken steps to ensure this matter is prosecuted since 2015. Matters cannot remain pending in court indefinitely without sufficient reason. Litigation should come to an end.
From the foregoing, I find that no explanation has been given for delay in prosecuting this matter. I proceed to dismiss it for want of prosecution. Costs to the respondent and interested parties.
Ruling dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru this 27th day of June 2019.
……………………....
RACHEL NGETICH
JUDGE