Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (suit filed 21/9/2011)· [2018] KEELC 1704 (KLR)

Regina Mukhabi Shitakhwa & another v Jenipher Busolo Patya [2018] KEELC 1704 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
26 September 2018
788 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This judgment, delivered at Kakamega on 26th September 2018, determines two interlocutory applications in a land/succession-related suit filed on 21st September 2011. The defendant (Jenipher Busolo Patya) applied on 31st August 2017 for dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution, noting the defendant had entered appearance and filed defence in 2011, that the suit had been adjourned repeatedly (including for substitution of a deceased plaintiff and compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules 2010), and that the plaintiffs had taken no steps since 2016. The plaintiffs applied on 26th May 2016 for a stay of the suit pending hearing of Kakamega Succession Cause Number 226 of 2012, in which they had lodged an objection to the defendant's letters of administration, to avoid conflicting decisions by two courts. The court perused the record and found no steps had been taken since 26th May 2016, that the plaintiffs lacked interest in the suit and were wasting the court's time, and that no particulars of the succession cause had been given. Applying Utalii Transport Company Ltd v NIC Bank and Ivita v Kyumbu, the court held the delay prolonged and inexcusable. It dismissed the plaintiffs' stay application for lack of merit and allowed the defendant's dismissal application with costs, thereby dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for want of prosecution.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution

Holding

The suit was dismissed for want of prosecution; the delay since 26th May 2016 was prolonged and inexcusable

Reasoning

The court perused the record and found that the plaintiffs had taken no steps to prosecute the suit since 26th May 2016. Applying Ivita v Kyumbu, the test is whether the delay is prolonged and inexcusable and whether justice can nonetheless be done. The court found the delay prolonged and inexcusable and that the plaintiffs lacked interest in the suit, warranting dismissal.

p. 2
02

Whether the proceedings should be stayed pending Kakamega Succession Cause Number 226 of 2012

Holding

The stay application was dismissed for lack of merit

Reasoning

The plaintiffs sought a stay to avoid conflicting decisions between the High Court and the succession court, having elected to pursue an objection in the succession cause. However, no particulars of the succession case were provided, and the plaintiffs' inaction demonstrated lack of interest. The court found the application had no merit and dismissed it.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • It is the primary duty of plaintiffs to take steps to progress their case since they are the ones who dragged the defendant to court
  • The test for dismissal for want of prosecution is whether the delay is prolonged and inexcusable and whether justice can still be done despite the delay, justice being for both parties

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiffs' application dated 26th May 2016 seeking stay of proceedings is dismissed
  2. 2.The defendant's application dated 31st August 2017 seeking dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution is granted with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules2010 Rules (compliance mention)

Cases cited (2)

  • Utalii Transport Company Ltd & 3 Others v NIC Bank & Another
    (2014) eKLR
  • Ivita v Kyumbu
    (1984) KLR 441
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent powers of the High Court under civil procedure law to dismiss suits for want of prosecution and to stay proceedings

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Regina Mukhabi Shitakhwa & another v Jenipher Busolo Patya [2018] KEELC 1704 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment (suit filed 21/9/2011). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1704/eng@2018-09-26

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.