Civil Case 1888 of 2001

Help

Advanced Search mode is suitable for finding a particular case when you have details that describe the case at hand e.g. (names of parties, case number, case year etc).
To find a case according to its meta data (names of parties, case number, and date of delivery, case year etc) one need not fill in all the fields. You may use any one or more search criteria; search using whatever information you have..

Download: PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML Show Metadata

FIRST ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v KINGSGATE INSURANCE BROKERS LTD. [2011] eKLR

Case Metadata
Case Number:	Civil Case 1888 of 2001
Parties:	FIRST ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v KINGSGATE INSURANCE BROKERS LTD.
Date Delivered:	13 Apr 2011
Case Class:	Civil
Court:	High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)
Case Action:	Ruling
Judge(s):	Leonard Njagi
Citation:	FIRST ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v KINGSGATE INSURANCE BROKERS LTD. [2011] eKLR
Case Summary:	..
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 NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURT COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION)

CIVIL CASE NO. 1888 OF 2001

FIRST ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD................................................................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

KINGSGATE INSURANCE BROKERS LTD....................................................................DEFENDANT

R U L I N G

By a notice dated 25^th February, 2010, the Advocates for the respective parties herein were requested to appear in Court and Show Cause why the suit should not be dismissed under Order XVI Rule 2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

In a replying affidavit thereto, the Plaintiff’s Advocate, Ms. Kahoya, conceded that she was aware that this matter had been last in Court on 3^rd December, 2002. She further deposed that she was aware that the Defendant Company closed its operations, and the Plaintiff did not proceed with the case due to the remote chances of the Defendant’s recovery. In a nutshell, the only reason for not taking a hearing date was as a result of the closure of operations by the Defendant.

On her part, Ms. Chege for the Defendant supported the dismissal of the suit under Order XVI Rule 2 (1) with the judgment on the counterclaim.

Order XVI Rule 2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules states as follows –

“In any suit in which no application has been made or step taken by either party for one year, the Court may give notice in writing to the parties to Show Cause why the suit should not be dismissed, and if cause is not shown to its satisfaction, may dismiss the suit.”

It is evident from Ms Kahoya’s affidavit that the Plaintiff is not keen on proceeding with this matter because of the closure of operations by the Defendant, and the latter’s remote chances of recovery. Although the Defendant itself has a counterclaim, which is taken in law as a plaint in its own right, the Defendant should also have taken steps to advance its cause regarding that counterclaim. However, it did not do so for more than seven years. Each party has a responsibility to take action to progress the matter, but none of them did so in this suit.

In these circumstances, I find that both parties are equally to blame, and that no good reason has been advanced for maintaining this suit. It is accordingly dismissed under Order XVI Rule 2 (1). For the same reasons, the counterclaim is also dismissed. Each party will bear its own costs.

Orders accordingly.

DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 13^th day of April, 2011.

L. NJAGI

JUDGE

Download PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML

Please enter advanced search options

Case Content:		Subject:
Case Number:		Parties:
Judge:		Court:
	Delivery Date Range:
From:		To:

Except for some material which is expressly stated to be under a specified Creative Commons license, the contents of this website are in the public domain and free from any copyright restrictions

Case Search

Civil Case 1888 of 2001

Case Metadata

Please enter advanced search options