[2023] KEELC 22 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 22 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to take any meaningful steps to prosecute their suit for over one year, with the last attendance being in December 2018 and no action taken until the notice to show cause was issued in December 2021. The court also determined that the suit against the 1st defendant had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 22 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Sanga Chibungu; Plaintiff: Sebastian Mwamuye Chibungu; Plaintiff: Steven Ngala Mtondoo; Defendant: Phedes Mpelelezi (Intended Administrator of the Estate of Mpelelezi Ndewa Kalama Deceased); Defendant: Harrison Mpelelezi (Intended Administrator of the Estate of Mpelelezi Ndewa Kalama Deceased); Defendant: Commissioner of Lands
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 31 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution; claim against 1st defendant marked as abated; costs awarded to defendants.
Judges
SM Kibunja
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Abatement of Suit, Land Title Disputes, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Abatement of Suit Land Title Disputes Costs Award

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Sanga Chibungu

Plaintiff

Sebastian Mwamuye Chibungu

Plaintiff

Steven Ngala Mtondoo

Plaintiff

Phedes Mpelelezi (Intended Administrator of the Estate of Mpelelezi Ndewa Kalama Deceased)

Defendant

Harrison Mpelelezi (Intended Administrator of the Estate of Mpelelezi Ndewa Kalama Deceased)

Defendant

Commissioner of Lands

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the suit against the 1st defendant has abated.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to take any meaningful steps to prosecute their suit for over one year, with the last attendance being in December 2018 and no action taken until the notice to show cause was issued in December 2021. The court also determined that the suit against the 1st defendant had abated as no application for substitution was made within one year of her death on December 31, 2018. The plaintiffs' arguments blaming the defendants for the delay in substitution were rejected, as the primary responsibility to prosecute the suit lay with the plaintiffs. The court concluded that no reasonable explanation for the delay was provided, and the requirements for...

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed for want of prosecution; claim against 1st defendant marked as abated; costs awarded to defendants.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs’ claim against the 1st defendant is marked to have lapsed after one year from her death on December 31, 2018.
  • The plaintiffs’ suit against the 2nd and 3rd defendants is dismissed for want of prosecution.