[2017] KEELC 2084 (KLR)
The court found that the notice to show cause was properly issued to the parties. Neither the appellant nor the respondent appeared in court to provide reasons or show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. In the absence of any cause shown, and in accordance with Order 42 Rule 35(2)...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2084 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Alfred Rugendo Kimotho; Respondent: Meru South County Council
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 28 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeals Process, Order 42 Rule 35, Failure to Prosecute
- 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
Alfred Rugendo Kimotho
Appellant
Meru South County Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the notice to show cause was properly issued to the parties. Neither the appellant nor the respondent appeared in court to provide reasons or show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. In the absence of any cause shown, and in accordance with Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that the appeal had not been prosecuted with due diligence and therefore warranted dismissal. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC [CA] CASE NO 28 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC [CA] CASE NO. 41 OF 2012
FORMERLY SPM CASE NO.44 OF 05 CHUKA
ALFRED RUGENDO KIMOTHO…....……………....………. APPELLANT
VERSUS
MERU SOUTH COUNTY COUNCIL………………………….. RESPONDENT
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on26. 7.2017 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 42 rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, they did not turn up.
2. I am satisfied that the apposite notice was properly issued.
3. I find that the parties have failed to show cause why this Appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of Order 42 Rule 35 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The suit, therefore, merits dismissal.
4. The suit is dismissed.
5. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 26th day of July, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Parties -absent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE