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

Christine Nazi Nyale v 1. Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd 2. Julius Alama Mwambere

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 246 OF 2006 CHRISTINE NAZI NYALE ……………………………..…….... PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1. HOUSING FINANCE COMPANY OF KENYA LTD 2. JULIUS ALAMA MWAMBERE ……………….......… DEFENDANTS RULING 1. Plaintiff filed this suit on 2nd November, 2006. The Defendants filed a Memorandum of Appearance and Defence on 28th November 2006 and 4th December 2006 respectively. From that date no action was taken by any part until the Defendants filed their Notice of Motion of 27 th July 2011. 2. By that Notice of Motion Defendants seek the dismissal of Plaintiff’s suit for want of prosecution. The application was not opposed perhaps as sign that Plaintiff does acknowledge that the suit should indeed be dismissed for want of prosecution. I will remind the Plaintiff her duty once she filed a case by referring to the decision FITZPATRICK –Vs- BATGER & CO. LTD (1967)2 ALL ER 657 Lord Denning, citing his decision in REGGENTINE –Vs- BEECHOLME BAKERIES LTD [1967]111 Sol. Jo. 216, said as follows“It is the duty of the Plaintiff’s advisers to get on with the case. Public policy demands that the business of the Courts should be conducted with expedition … the delay is far beyond anything we can excuse. This action has gone to sleep for nearly two years. It should now be dismissed for want of prosecution.” 3. For the above reasons I make the following ordersa. Plaintiff’s suit is hereby dismissed with costs to both Defendants for want of prosecution. b. Both Defendants are awarded costs of the Notice of Motion dated 27th July, 2011. DATED and DELIVERED at MOMBASA this 19TH day of JUNE, 2014. MARY KASANGO 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.