[2019] KEHC 1637 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 1637 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for a period of one year and six months since the last court appearance. No explanation was provided for this delay, and the plaintiff did not respond to the motion or attend court. The court held that such inordinate and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 1637 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: St Mary’s Mission Hospital High School through the Board; Defendant: St Mary’s Mission Hospital Limited; Defendant: Assumption Sisters of Nairobi Registered Trustees
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 12 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendants
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Mandatory Injunction, Preliminary Objection, Res Judicata
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Mandatory Injunction Preliminary Objection Res Judicata

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

St Mary’s Mission Hospital High School through the Board

Applicant

St Mary’s Mission Hospital Limited

Defendant

Assumption Sisters of Nairobi Registered Trustees

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff provided any justification for the delay in prosecuting the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for a period of one year and six months since the last court appearance. No explanation was provided for this delay, and the plaintiff did not respond to the motion or attend court. The court held that such inordinate and unexplained delay justified dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution under Order 17 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The defendants' motion was therefore allowed, and the suit was dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendants

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Costs awarded to the defendants.