JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appellant herein sued the respondents in the High Court seeking various reliefs. After various applications within the suit, the last one was disposed of on 23rd March 2000, and the appellant took no steps to prosecute its suit. Thereafter, by way of a notice of motion application dated 24th June 2004, the 2nd, 5th – 12th respondents applied to have the suit dismissed for want of prosecution on the grounds that the appellant had not moved to prosecute it for a period of over four years. The appellant opposed this application. While admitting that there had been a delay in setting the suit down for hearing, the appellant contended that the delay was justifiable because it had been expected that there would be an amicable settlement of the matter and also because Dr Kamau Kuria, the advocate who had conduct of the matter, was engaged in the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the Goldenberg Affair which proceedings had taken too long to conclude. The application…