[2020] KEHC 6335 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 6335 (KLR)

The court found that although there was a delay in prosecuting the petition, the delay was not shown to be inordinate or inexcusable to the extent that would justify dismissal. The 1st Respondent failed to demonstrate any prejudice that would be suffered if the petition were allowed to proceed. The court emphasized...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 6335 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: Wells Fargo Limited; Respondent: County Government of Mombasa; Respondent: Honourable Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 17 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Judicial Discretion, Delay in Prosecution, Prejudice to Parties
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Judicial Discretion Delay in Prosecution Prejudice to Parties

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wells Fargo Limited

Petitioner

County Government of Mombasa

Respondent

Honourable Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to delay by the petitioner.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the petition is inordinate and inexcusable.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent will suffer prejudice if the petition is allowed to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there was a delay in prosecuting the petition, the delay was not shown to be inordinate or inexcusable to the extent that would justify dismissal. The 1st Respondent failed to demonstrate any prejudice that would be suffered if the petition were allowed to proceed. The court emphasized the need to exercise discretion judiciously and to sustain suits where possible rather than terminate them prematurely. Since all parties had filed submissions and the only remaining step was for the court to issue a ruling date, the court held that the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The application for dismissal was therefore dismissed, with costs in the...

Court Disposition

application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 17/4/2019 is dismissed.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.