Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Civil Case 1888 of 2001|
|Parties:||FIRST ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v KINGSGATE INSURANCE BROKERS LTD.|
|Date Delivered:||13 Apr 2011|
|Court:||High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)|
|Citation:||FIRST ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v KINGSGATE INSURANCE BROKERS 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 a replying affidavit thereto, the Plaintiff’s Advocate, Ms. Kahoya, conceded that she was aware that this matter had been last in Court on 3rd 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.
“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.”
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.