Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

(milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division) v Equity Building Society Ltd.

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION) CIVIL CASE 359 OF 2004 JOYCE MUKUHI NJENGA …...……………………………...PLAINTIFF VERSUS EQUITY BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. ….….………… 1ST DEFENDANT PATRICK KUNGU KIMATA t/a MARCHET AUCTIONEERS ……………………….. 2ND DEFENDANT AGNES WANJIRU MUCHAI ……….………………. 3RD DEFENDANT RULING Notice of motion dated 2/3/2009 seeking orders to dismiss this suit for want prosecution under the provisions of Order XVI Rule 5 (d). The grounds are that the last time this matter was in court was on 26/8/08. It is over six months since and the plaintiff has not taken any steps to proceed to set down suit for hearing despite that the court diary for the year 2009 has been open since August 2008. The application is supported by affidavit of Joseph Gathoga Wairegi which I have read. The replying affidavit of Simon Theuri Wanjohi which I have also read, it is admitted that on 26/8/2008 the ruling was delivered by court. It is also admitted that the court diary was opened in November 2008. It is also stated that the court diary was closed on 4/2/2009. It is also stated that the discovery is not completed. It is clear as admitted the plaintiff has had more than 6 months with which to ensure discovery is completed and also to ensure that the court registry did allocate a hearing date of this suit within that time in the circumstances. I do not find the reasons for delay satisfactory. I allow the application and grant orders sought with costs. It is so ordered. DATED and DELIVERED at Nairobi this 7th day of May 2009. JOYCE N. KHAMINWA JUDGE

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.