Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | Civil Suit 184 of 1982 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | TERESA WANJIRU MIGWI v CHARLES JUSTUS NGENYE & JULIA WANGITHI MUTHOGA |
| Date Delivered: | 15 Jun 2006 |
| Case Class: | Civil |
| Court: | High Court at Nyeri |
| Case Action: | |
| Judge(s): | John Micheal Khamoni |
| Citation: | TERESA WANJIRU MIGWI v CHARLES JUSTUS NGENYE & another [2006] eKLR |
| Advocates: | Mr. Muthoni for the Applicant Mr. Mukuha for the Respondent |
| Advocates: | Mr. Muthoni for the Applicant Mr. Mukuha for the Respondent |
| Case Summary: | [Ruling] Civil Practice and Procedure - dismissal of suit - where suit is dismissed for want of prosecution - applicant having failed to take steps to have the suit heard and determined - suit dismissed - whether the dismissal of the suit was proper. |
| 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
TERESA WANJIRU MIGWI………................................................…………PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
Versus
CHARLES JUSTUS NGENYE
JULIA WANGITHI MUTHOGA……….................................…….DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS
RULING
Having carefully considered what was brought to my attention during the hearing of Chamber summons dated 30th May, 2002 when Mr. Muthoni, Counsel for the Applicant told me that the applicant now wants prayer number three only and m/s Mukuha Counsel for the respondent was opposing, I find that the matter was properly and procedurally dismissed by the court in the presence of counsel on both sides when the Applicant was taking no steps to have the suit heard and determined. Thereafter the applicant seems to have accepted what happened only to have an afterthought when she saw all the consequences of failing to prosecute her suit. A case of 1982 where the plaintiff perhaps thought that all one needed to do was for one to file a suit and thereafter go and sleep for once one has engaged an advocate, nothing bad will happen against one.
It is all right to come up again using a different advocate but the faults you allege against your previous advocate ought to be commented upon by that advocate for this court to know where the truth is found to-day twenty four years after the suit was filed.
The Chamber Summons is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Dated this 15th day of June, 2006.
J. M. KHAMONI
JUDGE
Please Wait. Searching ...