[2009] KEHC 4031 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiffs had lost interest in the matter, as evidenced by their failure to take any steps to prosecute the suit since 2004, despite the case being filed in 2000 and the previous judgment having been set aside by consent in 2004. The Plaintiffs did not attend the hearing of the application...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 4031 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: WEM Freight Consultants Limited; Plaintiff: Washington Nteere Ikunyua; Defendant: The Liquidator of Euro Bank Limited (In Liquidation); Defendant: Solomon Muthamia; Defendant: City Square Properties Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 1086 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendants
- Judges
- CJ Kendagor
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Orders
- 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
WEM Freight Consultants Limited
Plaintiff
Washington Nteere Ikunyua
Plaintiff
The Liquidator of Euro Bank Limited (In Liquidation)
Defendant
Solomon Muthamia
Defendant
City Square Properties Limited
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 due to inordinate and inexcusable delay by the plaintiffs.
- 2 Whether the delay has prejudiced the fair trial of the issues in dispute.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the application and the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiffs had lost interest in the matter, as evidenced by their failure to take any steps to prosecute the suit since 2004, despite the case being filed in 2000 and the previous judgment having been set aside by consent in 2004. The Plaintiffs did not attend the hearing of the application nor file any opposition. The delay was deemed inordinate and inexcusable, and the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, awarding 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 of the suit and the application are awarded to the Defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Suit 1086 of 2000
WEM FREIGHT CONSULTANTS LIMITED…....................................…….1ST PLAINTIFF
WASHINGTON NTEERE IKUNYUA……................................…………..2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
THE LIQUIDATOR OF EURO BANK LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION….1ST DEFENDANT
SOLOMON MUTHAMIA …….......................................…………………...2ND DEFENDANT
CITY SQUARE PROPERTIES LIMITED….........................................….3RD DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This is a Notice of Motion application brought under Order XVI rule 5(d) and Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules dated 12th August, 2008. It seeks two orders:
1. The suit herein be dismissed for want of prosecution
2. That the costs of this application and of the suit be borne by the Plaintiffs in any event.
The grounds upon which the application is based are on the face of the application as follows:
(a) The suit has not been set down for further hearing or any steps taken towards disposing the suit since 26th April 2007 when the firm of Ndirangu Kamau & Company came on record for the Plaintiffs.
(b) The delay by the Plaintiffs in taking the necessary steps to set down the suit for hearing is inordinate, unreasonable and inexcusable.
(c) That the delay in setting down the suit for hearing will prejudice the fair trial of the issues in dispute and it is otherwise an abuse of the due process of this Honourable Court.
(d) The 1st Defendant will further rely on the matters on record and other or further reasons to be adduced at the hearing hereof.
Mr. John Morris Ohaga has sworn an affidavit dated 19th July 2008 in support of the application.
Despite being served, neither the Plaintiff nor their Advocates came for the hearing of the application. No papers were filed in opposition to the application either.
I have considered the submissions made by Ms. Nyambura for the 1st Defendant/Applicant. I also had an occasion to peruse the file. I note that the matter was mentioned before the court on 14th October, 2008 where all parties were present. The mention was before Hon. Kihara, J. The learned Judge ordered that the matter should be mentioned before the court on 24th October, 2008 with a view to recording a consent on the application dated 12th August, 2008. I note that on the 24th October, 2008 when the matter came before me for mention, the Plaintiff’s advocate was not in court.
It is my view that the Plaintiff has lost interest in the matter. The delay in prosecuting the case has been inordinate since the matter was filed in 2000. There was an interlocutory judgment entered in 2000 and judgment upon formal proof delivered in December, 2003. That judgment was set aside by consent in 2004. Since then the case has never proceeded to hearing.
Having carefully considered the circumstances of the case I find that the Plaintiff has lost interest in the matter, and I therefore dismiss this suit for want of prosecution with costs to the Defendants.
Dated at Nairobi, this 30th day of January, 2009.
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE
Read, signed and delivered, in the presence of:
Ms. Nyambura for the 1st Defendant/Applicant
Ms. Lavuna holding brief Mr. Katwa for Respondent
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE