[2009] KEHC 863 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the matter since July 2007, despite the duty to do so. The court emphasized that delays in prosecution hamper the delivery of justice and clog the court system. As no sufficient cause was shown for the delay, and no cause was shown why the suit...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 863 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Savla International Limited; Defendant: Acme Containers Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 116 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FI Koome
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Case Management
- 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
Savla International Limited
Plaintiff
Acme Containers Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inaction by the plaintiff since July 2007.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the matter since July 2007, despite the duty to do so. The court emphasized that delays in prosecution hamper the delivery of justice and clog the court system. As no sufficient cause was shown for the delay, and no cause was shown why the suit should not be dismissed, the court exercised its discretion under Order XVI rule 2(1) and dismissed the suit for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Suit 116 of 2005
SAVLA INTERNAITONAL LIMITED ………………………………………. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ACME CONTAINERS LIMITED ……………………………………………….. DEFENDANT
RULING
A notice to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution came up for hearing on 3rd September 2009. Mr. Jaoko for the plaintiff submitted orally that since the list of issues was filed in July 2007 Mr. Wamalwa who was the advocate for the plaintiff had lost contact with the client for some time. However, recently the plaintiff gave instructions that the matter be fixed for hearing. Counsel for the plaintiff has not taken any steps to fix this matter for hearing since July 2007 even after contending the plaintiff instructed them to fix a hearing date this is not borne by the court record.
Miss Nduku counsel for the defendant supported the notice to have the suit dismissed for want of prosecution because the plaintiff has not taken any steps to prosecute the matter since July 2007.
Under the provisions of Order XVI rule 2(1) it is provided that:
“In any suit in which no application has been made or step taken by either party for one year, the court may give notice in writing to the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed, and if cause is not shown to its satisfaction, may dismiss the suit”
It is evident from the court record that the plaintiff has not taken any steps since July 2007 to prosecute this matter. This suit was filed in March 2005; it is the duty of the plaintiff to ensure that steps are taken to prosecute the matter. The court is also concerned about the delay caused by parties who file suits and fail to take action to prosecute them. This is hampering the delivery of justice and clogging the court system. The plaintiff has not shown any sufficient cause why it has not taken any steps to prosecute this matter and no cause has been shown why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Accordingly, the suit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs since the notice emanated from the court.
RULING READ AND SIGNED ON 13TH NOVERMBER 2009 AT NAIROBI.
M.K. KOOME
JUDGE