[2023] KEELC 21462 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 21462 (KLR)

The court found that no step had been taken by either party in the suit for more than a year. A notice was issued to the parties under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, but no cause was shown as to why the suit should not be dismissed. In accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 21462 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Francis Ogola Amoth; Applicant: Peter Osore; Applicant: Tomas Ochieng Abuto; Applicant: Moses Okongo Dinga; Respondent: Alloyce Odhiambo Dulo; Respondent: Isabela Omolo Dulo; Respondent: George Onono Dulo; Respondent: Michael Ouma Dulo; Respondent: Pius Okuku Dulo (Alias Joseph)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 16 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
GMA Ongondo
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Civil Case Management
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Adverse Possession Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Civil Case Management

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Ogola Amoth

Applicant

Peter Osore

Applicant

Tomas Ochieng Abuto

Applicant

Moses Okongo Dinga

Applicant

Alloyce Odhiambo Dulo

Respondent

Isabela Omolo Dulo

Respondent

George Onono Dulo

Respondent

Michael Ouma Dulo

Respondent

Pius Okuku Dulo (Alias Joseph)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
  2. 2 Whether any cause has been shown by the parties to prevent dismissal of the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have taken any steps to prosecute the suit within the required period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no step had been taken by either party in the suit for more than a year. A notice was issued to the parties under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, but no cause was shown as to why the suit should not be dismissed. In accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules and the constitutional imperative that justice shall not be delayed, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. There were no orders as to costs.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The suit is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
  • There shall be no orders as to costs.