[2024] KEHC 8596 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 8596 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any substantive or satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay in prosecuting the matter or in filing the application for reinstatement. The record showed a pattern of inaction and lack of interest by the applicant since 2017, with no steps taken for over a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 8596 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Milton Kimani Waitinga; Respondent: Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission; Respondent: Njoki Njeru Rosemary; Respondent: Wamacukuru Githua Kamau
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kiambu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 235 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DO Chepkwony
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Party and Party Costs, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Reinstatement of Suit Party and Party Costs Delay in Prosecution

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Milton Kimani Waitinga

Applicant

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission

Respondent

Njoki Njeru Rosemary

Respondent

Wamacukuru Githua Kamau

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Suit

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reasons to set aside the dismissal order for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the suit should be reinstated for prosecution of the Party and Party Bill of Costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any substantive or satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay in prosecuting the matter or in filing the application for reinstatement. The record showed a pattern of inaction and lack of interest by the applicant since 2017, with no steps taken for over a year prior to dismissal and a further eleven-month delay before seeking reinstatement. The court held that such lax conduct does not warrant the exercise of discretion to set aside the dismissal order. Consequently, the application to reinstate the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 14th November, 2023 is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.