[2017] KEHC 7535 (KLR)
The court found that since the suit was filed in June 2014, no steps had been taken to prosecute it, and the matter had never been placed before a judicial officer. The plaintiffs failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the delay or to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed. The court exercised...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 7535 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Alexander Mugendi; Plaintiff: Edward Mutwiri Mbuko; Defendant: Director of Kenya Forest Services; Defendant: Ecosystem Conservator Tharaka North; Defendant: Koki Timber & Saw Miller; Defendant: Mjamba Njiru Techniques; Defendant: Munjus Timber & Furniture; Defendant: Mt. Kenya East Environment Conservation Association; Defendant: Kamweru Auto Group
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 30 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Environment Case / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 1st and 2nd defendants
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2, Case Management, Costs Award
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alexander Mugendi
Plaintiff
Edward Mutwiri Mbuko
Plaintiff
Director of Kenya Forest Services
Defendant
Ecosystem Conservator Tharaka North
Defendant
Koki Timber & Saw Miller
Defendant
Mjamba Njiru Techniques
Defendant
Munjus Timber & Furniture
Defendant
Mt. Kenya East Environment Conservation Association
Defendant
Kamweru Auto Group
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether costs should be awarded to the 1st and 2nd defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since the suit was filed in June 2014, no steps had been taken to prosecute it, and the matter had never been placed before a judicial officer. The plaintiffs failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the delay or to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed. The court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and awarded costs to the 1st and 2nd defendants.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 1st and 2nd defendants
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs are awarded to the 1st and 2nd defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO 30 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC CASE NO.98 OF 2014
ALEXANDER MUGENDI.....................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
EDWARD MUTWIRI MBUKO.............................................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF KENYA FOREST SERVICES.................1ST DEFENDANT
ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATOR THARAKA NORTH....2ND DEFENDANT
KOKI TIMBER & SAW MILLER......................................3RD DEFENDANT
MJAMBA NJIRU TECHNIQUES......................................4TH DEFENDANT
MUNJUS TIMBER & FURNITURE....................................5TH DEFENDANT
MT. KENYA EAST ENVIRONMENT
CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION.....................................6TH DEFENDANT
KAMWERU AUTO GROUP................................................7TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Notice was issued for parties to come to court on 21. 2.2017 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 17 rule 2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. On 21. 2.2017, despite service, the plaintiff did not turn up in court. M/s Rimita, holding brief for Kiogora Arithi for the plaintiff, asked the court to give Mr. Kiogora 30 days to contact his clients.
3. The 1st and 2nd defendants were represented by advocate Kaimba, holding brief for Joe Kathungu, their advocate.
4. Mr Kaimba told the court that the 1st and 2nd defendants had filed an application dated 13th January, 2015 which sought dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. He told the court that the 1st and 2nd defendants sought dismissal with costs to be awarded in their favour.
5. I note that since the suit was filed in June, 2014, the matter has never been placed before a Judicial Officer.
6. I find that the parties have not shown to the satisfaction of the court why this should not be dismissed.
7. This suit is dismissed.
8. Costs are awarded to the 1st and 2nd defendants.
9. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 28th day of February, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Otieno C h/b Joe Kathungu for the 1st and 2nd defendants
Others parties absent
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE