Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Isaac Murungu Shakome v Lucy Wairimu t/a Redrose Restaurant [2022] KEELRC 228 (KLR)
The court dismissed an application to set aside a dismissal for want of prosecution, finding no sufficient explanation for the long delay in moving the case forward.
Malindi Salt Works Limited v Rongai Workshop & Transport Ltd [2019] KEHC 4938 (KLR)
The High Court at Nakuru dismissed an application to set aside dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution, finding no sufficient explanation for delay or non-attendance.
Daniel Tsozi v Danson Msuko,Sylvester Msuko,Duncan Msuko & Burton Msuko [2019] KEELC 2907 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory or credible explanation for his absence on the hearing date when the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. The documents produced to support his claim of illness did not cover the material date, and the plaintiff admitted awareness of the hearing but did not take adequate steps to ensure the case proceeded. The court emphasized that it is the plaintiff's duty to prosecute his case and that the discretion to reinstate a dismissed suit is not intended to assist litigants who have been complacent or casual. As such, the co…
Source excerpt
Joseph Miiru Kirumpu, Kithinji Mutithi & Murithi Mutithi v Veronica Gataru Gerrald [2018] KEELC 785 (KLR)
The Environment and Land Court at Chuka dismissed an application to reinstate an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution, finding the explanations for delay unsatisfactory and the appeal improperly before court.
Patrick Watila Buyela v Patrick Watila Buyela [2018] KEELC 3703 (KLR)
The court dismissed an application to dismiss a land suit for want of prosecution, finding the plaintiff had given a plausible, unchallenged explanation for delay due to court diary constraints.
George Peter Mutiso v Jimack Enginnering Workshop [2017] KEELRC 797 (KLR)
The court found that the claimant failed to take any meaningful steps to prosecute the suit between June 2012 and April 2016, resulting in an inordinate delay. The court held that such delay was prejudicial to the respondent and could not be remedied by an award of costs. The court further found no justification to set aside the dismissal order, emphasizing the claimant's primary responsibility to progress their case. The application to set aside the dismissal was therefore dismissed.
Source excerpt
John Njaria Mutunga,Penina Karuta & Priscilla Kalingu v Godfrey Muhuri Muchiri & Embakasi Ranching Company Ltd [2016] KEHC 8275 (KLR)
The High Court dismissed an application to reinstate a suit dismissed for want of prosecution, finding the plaintiffs had not justified a long and unexplained delay.
Edmund Jilan Sadi v Kenya Ports Authority [2014] KEHC 5883 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for six years since it was last in court. The defendant demonstrated that it would suffer prejudice if the case continued, as potential witnesses had left employment and were difficult to trace. The court emphasized that justice must be served to both parties and that it is the plaintiff's responsibility to progress the case. Given the prolonged inaction and lack of interest by the plaintiff, the court concluded that the suit should not remain on record and dismissed it for want of prosecution, awarding cost…
Source excerpt
Mbaruk Khamis Mohamed & Zired Mbaruk Mohamed v Amir Khan Sardar Khan, Akber Khan Sardar Khan, Gurminder Singh Grewal, Joseph Mutero Kiringa, Samuel Mukia Kiarie, Kantibhai Chlotabhai Patel, Mohamed Jamil Chaudrey, Dulip Kumar Nagpal, Pravin Kumar Nagpal, Kulthum Leuth, Khalid Gulmuhamad Khamis Shapi, Gazi Beach Investments Limited, Chitakoo Limited & Kumarpal Magananlal Doshi [2013] KEHC 2421 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over eight years since the last action in 2003, despite being under an obligation to ensure timely prosecution. The inactivity was deemed inordinate and inexcusable, and the defendants demonstrated that they were prejudiced by the delay, as they might not be able to trace witnesses or evidentiary records necessary for their defence. The plaintiffs did not oppose the application or provide any explanation for the delay. Applying the principles from Mukisa Biscuit Co. v West End Distributors and Agip (Ken…
Source excerpt
KENNETH MBAE CHARLES V CARZAN FLOWERS (K) LIMITED [2012] KEHC 994 (KLR)
The High Court declined to dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution, but gave the appellant six months to set it down for hearing or face dismissal.
Explore more
