[2019] KEELC 4177 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over a year since the last ruling was delivered. The delay was deemed inordinate and inexcusable, and no explanation or response was provided by the plaintiff despite being served directly. The court emphasized the duty of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 4177 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Anita Mugambi; Defendant: Meru County Investment and Development Corporation
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 76 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Overriding Objective, Expeditious Disposal, Duty of Parties
- 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
Anita Mugambi
Plaintiff
Meru County Investment and Development Corporation
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate and inexcusable delay by the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit is prejudicial to the defendant and contrary to the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over a year since the last ruling was delivered. The delay was deemed inordinate and inexcusable, and no explanation or response was provided by the plaintiff despite being served directly. The court emphasized the duty of parties to assist in achieving the overriding objective of expeditious disposal of cases as mandated by the Civil Procedure Act. In the absence of any action or justification from the plaintiff, and in light of the prejudice to the defendant, the court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution with costs...
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Costs of the suit and the application are awarded to the defendant/applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MERU
ELC NO. 76 OF 2016
ANITA MUGAMBI...........................................PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
MERU COUNTY INVESTMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION................DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
1. Vide the notice of motion filed on 6. 8.2018, applicant/defendant is seeking for following orders:
(i) That this suit be dismissed for want of prosecution.
(ii) That costs of the suit of this application be borne by the plaintiff/respondent.
2. The grounds of the application are that:
(a) That the plaint was filed on 15th June 2016.
(b) That since July 2017 when this Honourable court delivered a ruling, the plaintiff has taken no further step whatsoever to prosecute this suit.
(c) That it is over a year since the plaintiff took any action or step in respect of this suit.
(d) That it is in the interest of justice that the suit be dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. The application is supported by an affidavit filed on 6. 8.2018, whereby the advocate for the defendant avers that the plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant on 15th June 2016, while the ruling was delivered on 19th July 2017 and the plaintiff has neither taken any action nor any other step to prosecute the suit.
4. The defendant through his advocate stated that the delay in prosecution of the suit by the plaintiff was inordinate, inexcusable and is prejudicial to the defendant and thus it was clear that the plaintiff lost interest in the suit. Applicant believes it is fair and just that the suit be dismissed. He further averred that it was an overriding objective of the Civil procedure Act cap 21 Laws of Kenya that litigation must be heard and determined expeditiously and a party to civil proceedings or an advocate to such a party is under a duty to assist the court in achieving the overriding objective of the act.
5. The Counsel for Respondent ceased acting for the plaintiff hence the present application was served upon the plaintiff directly vide the affidavit of service filed in court on 11. 2.2019. No response has so far been filed.
6. Pursuant to provisions of order 17 rule (2), this suit is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to Defendant/Applicant.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS DAY OF 27TH MARCH, 2019 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Kananu
C.P Mbaabu for plaintiff
Ojiambo for defendant
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE