REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Machakos Civil Case 95 of 2009 PATRICK MUTHENGI MALUKI............................................................PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT VERSUS PETER K. WATUTA..............................................................................DEFENDANT/APPLICANT RULING This is a Notice of Motion dated 25 May 2012 filed by the defendant Peter K. Watuta. It is an application requesting that the suit herein, filed in 2009 be dismissed for want of prosecution. The application was filed under Order 17 Rule 2 (1) (3) and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. Though the application which had a hearing date for 18th July 2012 was served on M/s Lawrence Mwangi & Company Advocates for the plaintiff on 28/6/2012, they marked their receipt of the application to be under protest without indicating the reason for the protest. They also did not attend court, nor did they file a response to the application. At the back of the hearing notice the said advocates for the plaintiff endorsed that the service be effected on the plaintiff, while they had not actually not withdrawn from acting for the plaintiff. Unfortunately, as the application is not opposed, the plaintiff will have to lose this case. No action has been taken by the plaintiff or his advocate, since defence was filed on 19th June 2009. I will therefore dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. However, the advocate Lawrence Mwangi, who filed the plaint and is still on record, will pay the costs. Consequently, I allow the application. The suit is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. The plaintiff’s advocate Lawrence Mwangi will personally pay the costs of the defendant. Dated and delivered this 16th day of November, 2012. George Dulu Judge In the presence of: Mr J Makau holding brief for Mwalimu for the Defendant Mutinda – Court clerk.
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.