Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Civil Suit 63 of 2002|
|Parties:||LEVY WAFULA & others v KENYA RED CROSS SOCIETY LTD|
|Date Delivered:||16 Dec 2010|
|Court:||High Court at Malindi|
|Judge(s):||Hellen Amolo Omondi|
|Citation:||LEVY WAFULA & others v KENYA RED CROSS SOCIETY LTD  eKLR|
|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|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
LEVY WAFULA & OTHERS.................................................................................PLAINTIFF
(1) The plaintiffs have no interest in the suit because from 3/4/96 when the suit was filed, no serious steps were taken to prosecute the case.
The application is supported by the affidavit sworn by the Defendant’s Secretary General Mary Kuria who states that no steps have been taken to prosecute the case and in any event the defendant has lost many of its witnesses.
When the application came up for hearing, Mr. Mwadilo who is on record for the firm of Khaminwa and Khaminwa informed the court he had filed an application seeking to cease acting for the plaintiffs, so he was seeking adjournment. The adjournment was opposed by defence counsel Mr. Masika who said that would only add to more delay. The court read mischief and agreed with Mr. Masika. Mr. Mwadilo requested the court to be allowed to leave the court room saying he had not received any instructions. The court granted his request. Really there can be no justification in sustaining this suit which was filed in court in 1996 in Mombasa, later transferred to Malindi when a High Court became operational and that is why it has a 2002 registration.
The suit is actually 13 years in court, with little to show. I agree with Mr. Masika that there is absolutely no reason for retaining this matter, plaintiffs seem to have lost interest in the matter and they were not in court to prosecute the application.
The plaintiffs/respondents to bear the costs of this application.
H. A. OMONDI