Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | Civil Case 21 Of 2000 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | Joses M’muga v Marksman Concrete Limited |
| Date Delivered: | 24 Feb 2005 |
| Case Class: | Civil |
| Court: | High Court at Embu |
| Case Action: | |
| Judge(s): | Isaac Lenaola |
| Citation: | Joses M’muga v Marksman Concrete Limited [2005] eKLR |
| Case Summary: | civil procedure - dismissal of suit for want of prosecution - that application may be denied if respondent has at least shown some effort at prosecuting the claim albeit not enough |
| History Advocates: | Neither party represented |
| History County: | Baringo |
| Case Outcome: | Allowed |
| Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE 21 OF 2000
JOSES M’MUGA (Suing as the
Administrator of the estate of
LENAH KARIMI JOSES – DECEASED) ……. PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
MARKSMAN CONCRETE LIMITED ……….. DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
1. The Defendant herein seeks Orders that the suit herein be dismissed for want of Prosecution Under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. The ground in support is that the Plaintiff has since the pleadings closed in 2002 taken no steps at all to have the suit set down for hearing. It would appear, so the Defendant states in his Supporting Affidavit, that the Plaintiff has lost interest and yet the Defendant is anxious to have matter behind it.
3. The Plaintiff in reply argues that the Court file disappeared soon after the Defence was filed and when it was traced in March 2004, the Court Diary was full and no dates could be given.
4. I would have been happy to dismiss the suit but I am alive to the fact that the High Court in Embu had no regular Judge until September 2004. I have heard the Plaintiff and inspite of the delay in fixing the matter for hearing, he is still interested in the suit. I also note that some letters were sent to Advocates previously acting for the Plaintiff to fix hearing dates. It cannot be said that nothing was done in three years. Something was done albeit not enough.
5. I shall dismiss the Application but costs thereof shall be paid to the Applicant as a way of telling the Plaintiff that the delay is costly but discretion has swung his way.
Orders accordingly.
Read in Open Court this 24th day of February 2005
In the presence of;
Mr. Muchiri for Defendant
N/A for Plaintiff
Please Wait. Searching ...