[2002] KEHC 608 (KLR)
The court found that, although the plaintiff claimed the suit had been prosecuted and terminated in its favour against all defendants, the record showed that the decree and previous rulings applied only to the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The allegations in the plaint against the first defendant had not been determined,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 608 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Shigog Investments Limited; Defendant: National Bank of Kenya Limited; Defendant: Kenya Revenue Authority; Defendant: Commissioner of Customs & Excise; Defendant: Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 113 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Suit against first defendant dismissed for want of prosecution with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Interim Injunctions, Party Representation Conflict
- 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
Shigog Investments Limited
Plaintiff
National Bank of Kenya Limited
Defendant
Kenya Revenue Authority
Defendant
Commissioner of Customs & Excise
Defendant
Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit against the first defendant should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has prosecuted the suit against the first defendant within the prescribed time.
- 3 Whether the decree and previous rulings terminated the suit as against the first defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, although the plaintiff claimed the suit had been prosecuted and terminated in its favour against all defendants, the record showed that the decree and previous rulings applied only to the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The allegations in the plaint against the first defendant had not been determined, and the suit as between the plaintiff and the first defendant remained outstanding. No steps had been taken to prosecute the suit against the first defendant within the prescribed time since the close of pleadings. Therefore, the application by the first defendant for dismissal for want of prosecution was allowed, and the suit against the first defendant was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Suit against first defendant dismissed for want of prosecution with costs.
Orders
- The suit against the first defendant is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs awarded to the first defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CIVIL SUIT NO. 113 OF 1998
SHIGOG INVESTMENTS LIMITED ……………………… PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA LIMITED ………. 1ST DEFENDANT
2. KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY ……………….. 2nd DEFENDANT
3. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & EXECISE….. 3RD DEFENDANT
4. ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………………….. 4TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The first defendant in this suit seeks orders to dismiss this suit against it for want of prosecution on the part of this applicant. The application is supported by affidavit sworn by counsel Ms. Gudka who states that the pleadings between plaintiff and the applicant closed on 4. 5.1998 and since then the plaintiff has taken no further steps against this defendant. The application is brought under Order XVI rule 5(a).
The plaintiff in reply states that it is not true that there is want of prosecution in this suit. It is said that the suit has been prosecuted and has terminated in favour of plaintiff against all defendants.
That a ruling by Hon. Commissioner Tutui determined the matter and a decree was drawn (exhibit SMS2). The plaintiff proceeds to allege that the advocates A B Patel & Patel should not be acting for first defendant as they acted for the plaintiff on this particular transaction and was paid shs. 2 million as fees and it is not right for them to act against them in this case. Further they say the first defendant was sued in his capacity as trustee only as he was keeping a deposit of money in this case during 1997-1998. I have perused the record. The plaint accuses the applicant of intending to“irregularly and/or wrongfully to release a sum of shs. 30. 582. 109/- thereby jeopardizing the interest of the plaintiff and hence endangering its ownership of the charged property” and “despite notice to first defendant ……….have refused and neglected to refrain from the act”.The prayers of plaint is an injunction restraining the applicant from releasing the money. The applicant filed statement of defence denying these allegations. I see the plaintiff taxed party & party only against 2nd and 3rd defendant. Looking at the Notice of Motion dated 24. 10. 2000 it was made against 2nd and 3rd defendants only on their admissions and the decree drawn from the ruling of the court is against he 2nd and 3rd defendants only.
I find therefore that the allegations made in the plaint against the applicant and denied by the applicants have never been determined although an interim injunction was issued.The suit between plaintiff and this defendant is therefore outstanding and has not been prosecuted within the prescribed time.
In the circumstances the application is allowed and orders are granted as prayed with costs.
Dated this 14th day of June, 2002.
J. KHAMINWA
COMMISSIONER OF ASSIZE
Read in presence of Ms. Gudka and Mrs. Obura
Mrs. Obura – I apply for a certified copy of the ruling and the proceedings of this application.
Court – Order granted copies to be supplied upon payment of coping charges.
J. KHAMINWA
COMMISSIONER OF ASSIZE