SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

DANIEL GATHAIYA NJAGI & another v BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY FUND [2006] KEHC 2145 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 2145 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2145
Citation
[2006] KEHC 2145 (KLR)
Decided
5 June 2006
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureApplication for dismissal of suit for want of prosecutionCoramH.P.G. WAWERU
Holding

The application for dismissal of the suit is refused. The Plaintiffs are ordered to take demonstrable steps towards prosecution of the suit within 30 days from the date of delivery of this ruling. If they fail, the court may review the order of dismissal.

Facts

Pleadings closed on or about 24 February 2005. Plaintiffs and Defendant exchanged correspondence regarding statement of agreed issues and lists of documents prior to the filing of the statement of agreed issues on 19 December 2005.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiffs have been indolent in preparing the suit for hearing.
  2. Whether the Defendant's application for dismissal of the suit is premature and unduly haste.

Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's decision in BHANDARI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs STANDARD JOINERY & BUILDING COMPANY [1983] KLR 111 is cited. The Plaintiffs have not been indolent and have been preparing the suit for trial. The Defendant's application is premature.

Outcome

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs must take demonstrable steps towards prosecution of the suit within 30 days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
  • If Plaintiffs fail, the court may review the order of dismissal of the application herein.

Remedies

  • Award of costs of the application to the Defendant, assessed at KShs.15,000/00.
  • Defendant may execute for the same forthwith.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • BHANDARI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs STANDARD JOINERY & BUILDING COMPANY [1983] KLR 111
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case