REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NUMBER 269 OF 2011 (OS) IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 27 OF THE LIMITATIONS ACT CHAPTER 22 LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 1, 1B, 3, 3A OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT AND ORDER 37 RULE 6 (1) AND RULE 34 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 288 OF THE COMPANIES ACT CHAPTER 486 LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 36 OF THE BANKING ACT CHAPTER 488 LAWS OF KENYA BETWEEN TIMOTHY NDUVI MUTUNGI.........................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS DAIMA BANK LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION).................................... 1 ST DEFENDANT DEPOSIT PROTECTION FUND BOARD............................................. 2 ND DEFENDANT TRAVEL CONCEPTS LIMITED............................................................. 3 RD DEFENDANT JONATHAN MUIA NZIUKO.................................................................. 4 TH DEFENDANT IDAH NDUVA............................................................................................ 5 TH DEFENDANT MUSAN ENTERPRISES LIMITED........................................................ 6 TH DEFENDANT RULING Daima Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) and Deposit Protection Fund Board, the 1 st and 2nd Defendants took out the motion dated 24th April, 2013 and applied for this suit to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The motion is supported by the affidavit of Onesmus Muli. When served with the motion, Timothy Nduvi Mutungi the Plaintiff/Respondent filed a replying affidavit he swore to oppose the application. When the motion came up for inter-parties hearing, learned counsels appearing in the matter were allowed to make oral submissions. The 1 st
page 1 of 2
and 2nd Defendants argued that it is now more than one (1) year since this suit came up before court and the Plaintiff has failed to take the relevant steps to have the suit ready for hearing. The duo pointed out that the Plaintiffs appear to have lost interest in pursuing the suit, therefore, it is just and fair for the suit to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Plaintiff has strenuously opposed the application and has enumerated the factors which caused the delay in prosecuting the suit. First, it is argued that the 4th Defendant took time to obtain letters of Administration. Secondly, it is stated that there were serious difference between him and the firm of N. R. Nyamai & Co. Advocates. It is the Plaintiff’s submission that the clash between the Plaintiff and the Defendants further delayed the conclusion. I have carefully considered the response vis-à-vis the arguments put forward in support of the motion and it is clear that the Defendants have not controverted the reasons advanced in support the application for dismissal. The Plaintiff has been categorical that the delay was caused by the disagreement he has had with his erstwhile advocate. It is also not in dispute that it took time to obtain the letters of administration on behalf of the aforesaid defendant. I find the reasons advanced to explain the delay to be plausible. Consequently, I find no merit in the appliction dated 24 th April, 2013. The same is dismissed with costs awaiting the outcome of the suit. Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 20th day of July, 2018. ........................... J K SERGON JUDGE In the presence of ............................. for the plaintiff ........................ for the Defendants
page 2 of 2