[2024] KEHC 6647 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 6647 (KLR)

The court found that the client/respondent, having been granted an extension of time to file a reference against the taxing master’s award, failed to take any further steps to prosecute the reference for a prolonged period. The court was satisfied that the client/respondent was properly served with the application...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 6647 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Prof. Tom Ojienda & Associates; Respondent: County Government of Meru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 10 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Reference for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Application allowed; reference dismissed for want of prosecution; stay orders discharged.
Judges
LN Mugambi
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Taxation of Costs, Reference Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Taxation of Costs Reference Procedure

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prof. Tom Ojienda & Associates

Applicant

County Government of Meru

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Reference for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the reference dated 3rd June, 2021 should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the client/respondent was properly served and given an opportunity to prosecute the reference.
  3. 3 Whether the stay orders issued on 27th May, 2021 should be discharged.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the client/respondent, having been granted an extension of time to file a reference against the taxing master’s award, failed to take any further steps to prosecute the reference for a prolonged period. The court was satisfied that the client/respondent was properly served with the application to dismiss the reference and related documents, both physically and via email, and had ample opportunity to respond or appear but chose not to do so. The court held that the continued indolence and lack of action by the client/respondent justified dismissal of the reference for want of prosecution. Consequently, the court allowed the advocate/applicant’s application, dismissed...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; reference dismissed for want of prosecution; stay orders discharged.

Orders

  • The application by the advocate/applicant is allowed with costs.
  • The client/respondent reference dated 3rd June, 2021 is dismissed for want of prosecution.