[2008] KEHC 3542 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to fix the case for hearing for over three years following a general adjournment at the plaintiff's request. Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules clearly places the responsibility for setting down the suit for hearing on the plaintiff. The court noted that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 3542 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Stanley Kanyi Kigotho; Defendant: Charles Gikandi Maina
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 235 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Adjournment of Hearing, Case Management, 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
Stanley Kanyi Kigotho
Plaintiff
Charles Gikandi Maina
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the responsibility to fix the case for hearing lies solely with the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to fix the case for hearing for over three years following a general adjournment at the plaintiff's request. Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules clearly places the responsibility for setting down the suit for hearing on the plaintiff. The court noted that the plaintiff's explanation for the delay—difficulty in obtaining documents—was insufficient and did not absolve him of his duty to prosecute the case. The court further held that the defendant was under no obligation to fix the case for hearing. Given the prolonged inaction and lack of prosecution, the court concluded that the plaintiff had lost interest in the suit, and it was...
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs of the suit and the Notice of Motion dated 7th December 2007 are awarded to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
Civil Suit 235 of 2000
STANLEYKANYI KIGOTHO ……..………… PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
versus
CHARLES GIKANDI MAINA………………… DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
What is before court is a Notice of Motion dated 7th December 2007. That application is filed by the Defendant. It is brought under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It seeks the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. In the affidavit in support the Defendant stated that this case was last in court on 29th April 2004. The Defendant deponed that the Plaintiff had not subsequently fixed the case for hearing which was evident that the Plaintiff was not interested in prosecuting his case. In the Plaintiff’s replying affidavit the Plaintiff said that he was desirous to prosecute the case. He attributed the delay in prosecuting to lack of documents which he said that he had been trying to get from the Ministry of Lands. The Plaintiff further stated that it was not his responsibility alone to fix the case for hearing.
The plaint in this matter was filed on 13th December, 2000. The Plaintiff simultaneously filed a Chamber Summons application seeking injunction to restrain the Defendant, his servants and agents from entering plot No. 5118/212. That application has never been prosecuted. The case was fixed for hearing on 29th April 2004 and the same was adjourned on that day generally at the instance of the Plaintiff who said that the case could not proceed in the absence of two of his witnesses, one being from the land’s office. The Plaintiff sought an adjournment on the basis that the two witnesses were unavailable. As correctly stated by the Defendant the Plaintiff since that date has not fixed this case for hearing. In response to the application the Plaintiff argued that the responsibility of fixing the case did not lie on him alone. For the avoidance of doubt Order XVI Rule 5 provides as follows:-
“If, within three months after:-
(a) the close of pleadings; or
(b) the removal of the suit from the hearing list; or
(c) the adjournment of the suit generally, the plaintiff, or the court of its own motion onnotice to the parties, does not set downthe suit for hearing, the defendant mayeither set the suit down for hearing orapply for its dismissal.
As can be seen from the above Rule there is no responsibility borne by the Defendant to fix the case for hearing. Indeed looking at that order since the Plaintiff had failed to fix the case for hearing for more than three years, the court could on its on motion have dismissed this suit for want of prosecution. I can find no reason why the Defendant’s prayers should not be entertained. It does seem clear the Plaintiff has lost interest in this suit and the same should not continue to hang over the head of the Defendant.
Accordingly this suit is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with costs of the suit and costs of the Notice of Motion dated 7th December, 2007 are awarded to the Defendant.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2008.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE