REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURT CIVIL SUIT NO. 459 OF 2008 CROSSLEY HOLDINGS LIMITED .....…………………. PLAINTIFF Versus NAGENDRASAXENA …...…..….…............………… 1STDEFENDANT JOHN GITAU KIMANI T/A JOGIAUCTIONEERS ...…...…….....………..………...… 2NDDEFENDANT MIWANI SUGAR MILLS LTD ……........………………... 3RD DEFENDANT MIWANI SUGAR CO. (1989) LTD . (IN RECEIVERSHIP) ……..........................………………… 4TH DEFENDANT DIRECTIONS [1] Today had been set as the date for the delivery of a ruling on the3 rd and 4th Defendants’ Motion dated 10th September 2014 which is seeking the dismissal of this suit for want of prosecution. But, upon meticulous perusal of the entire application and the file, something kept on disturbing my mind, and saying to me that the facts of this case are familiar. I followed my sixth sense and it came to my knowledge that, while I was in charge of the Department of Civil Litigation and Asset Recovery at Kenya Anti-corruption Commission(KACC) now EACC, I came into contact with information arising from an investigation on the land in question herein. My objective view, therefore, is that, in the best interest of all the parties and justice, I should not handle the application herein or any part of this case. Accordingly, I direct that this file be placed before the presiding judge of the division on 14 th September 2015 for re-allocation to another judge. Submissions have been filed and the judge who will take over the matter will write a ruling straight away. I regret this move may occasion some delay in the disposal of the application, but it is most desirable course to take in the circumstances of the case and for above reason. It is so directed. Dated, signed and delivered in court at Nairobi this 21st day of July 2015. ---------------------------------------------F. GIKONYO 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.