Mukavi Ways Co Limited v Family Bank Limited [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
O.A. Angote
Judgment Date
October 09, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Mukavi Ways Co Limited v Family Bank Limited [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal principles and outcomes from this significant judgment.

Case Brief: Mukavi Ways Co Limited v Family Bank Limited [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Mukavi Ways Co. Limited v. Family Bank Limited
- Case Number: ELC. CASE NO. 451 OF 2017
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Date Delivered: 9th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): O.A. Angote
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue in this case is whether the Plaintiff's suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay in taking necessary steps to advance the case.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Plaintiff, Mukavi Ways Co. Limited, initiated the suit against the Defendant, Family Bank Limited, by filing a Notice of Motion Application on 14th November 2017, alongside a Plaint, seeking interim orders of injunction. The court initially granted these orders ex-parte. However, subsequent hearings were adjourned, and a critical ruling dismissing the Plaintiff's application occurred on 26th October 2018. Following this ruling, the Plaintiff failed to take any further steps to prosecute the suit, prompting the Defendant to file a Notice of Motion on 2nd December 2019, seeking dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with the filing of the Plaint and an urgent application in November 2017. After several adjournments, the Plaintiff's application was dismissed in October 2018. The Defendant's application for dismissal was filed in December 2019, citing the Plaintiff's inactivity for over a year, which led to the current ruling.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which allows for dismissal of a suit if no application or step has been taken by either party for one year.
- Case Law: The court referenced the case of *Argan Wekesa Okumu vs. Dima College Limited & 2 others [2015] eKLR*, which established that an applicant must demonstrate that the delay is inordinate, inexcusable, and prejudicial. Additionally, in *George Gatere Kibata vs. George Kuria Mwaura & another [2017] eKLR*, it was emphasized that failure to act for over a year could justify dismissal for want of prosecution. The court also cited *Fran Investments Limited vs. G4S Security Services Limited [2015] eKLR*, which acknowledged the tension between the right to a fair hearing and the need for expedient case resolution.
- Application: The court found that the Plaintiff had not taken any steps to set the matter for hearing for over a year after the last ruling. The Plaintiff's claim of needing documents from the Defendant was unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the court ruled that the Plaintiff had not demonstrated good cause for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the Defendant, dismissing the Plaintiff's suit for want of prosecution, citing the lack of action from the Plaintiff for over a year and the absence of justifiable reasons for the delay. This decision underscores the importance of timely prosecution of cases to ensure justice is served efficiently.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this ruling.

8. Summary:
The case of Mukavi Ways Co. Limited v. Family Bank Limited resulted in the dismissal of the Plaintiff's suit due to failure to prosecute it actively. The ruling highlights the judicial expectation for parties to advance their cases diligently and the consequences of inaction, thereby reinforcing the principle that justice delayed is justice denied.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

This is the end of the summary preview.