[2009] KEHC 640 (KLR)
The court found that while the plaintiff had been less than diligent in prosecuting the matter, there were mitigating circumstances including the closure of the court diary and counsel's bereavement. In the interest of justice, the court exercised its discretion to allow the plaintiff a final opportunity to fix the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 640 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Yobesh Amoro; Defendant: The Heritage A.I.I. Insurance Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 691 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed; conditional opportunity granted to plaintiff to prosecute suit.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Award, Case Management
- 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
Yobesh Amoro
Plaintiff
The Heritage A.I.I. Insurance Company 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 delay by the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has provided sufficient justification for the delay in prosecuting the suit.
- 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the plaintiff had been less than diligent in prosecuting the matter, there were mitigating circumstances including the closure of the court diary and counsel's bereavement. In the interest of justice, the court exercised its discretion to allow the plaintiff a final opportunity to fix the suit for hearing within three months. However, the court awarded the defendant costs of the application, to be paid within fourteen days. The court further ordered that failure by the plaintiff to fix the matter for hearing within the stipulated period would result in automatic dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
Application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed; conditional opportunity granted to plaintiff to prosecute suit.
Orders
- Plaintiff to fix the suit for hearing within three months from the date of the ruling.
- Failure to fix the suit for hearing within three months will result in automatic dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Suit 691 of 2005
YOBESH AMORO…………………………………………………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
THE HERITAGE A.I.I. INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED………DEFENDANT
RULING
By a Notice of Motion dated 6th January, 2009 the defendant applied to have the plaintiff’s suit dismissed with costs for want of prosecution. The application is premised on the grounds that the cause of action arose way back in August, 2005. The suit was filed in December 2005, and plaintiff has not taken steps to prosecute this matter. The last time action was taken in this matter is when the plaintiff had sought to strike the defence, which application was denied vide the court ruling delivered on 4th May 2007. Thereafter the plaintiff did not take any steps to list the matter for hearing or to prepare the suit for hearing. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has lost interest in the matter and the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
This application was opposed, counsel for the plaintiff relied on her replying affidavit sworn on 20th April 2009, Counsel for the plaintiff has given a chronology of events that took place from the time the ruling disallowing the application to strike the defence was delivered on 4th May 2007. Firstly the court diary for 2007 was closed; secondly counsel was bereaved having lost a sister in a tragic fire that occurred in the Nakumatt Downtown building. She urged the court to grant her an opportunity to have the matter fixed for hearing.
I have gone through this file including the pleadings; I am inclined in the interest of justice to allow the plaintiff a chance to prosecute this matter. I note the plaintiff has been less than diligent in prosecuting this matter, I also take note that the court diary also gets filled up very early. The defendant will have the costs of this application assessed at kshs.10,000/= to paid within fourteen (14) days from to date. The plaintiff shall fix this matter for hearing within three months, failure to which the suit will stand dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant.
Ruling signed and read on 27th November 2009 at Nairobi
M.K. KOOME
JUDGE