[2017] KEELC 990 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 990 (KLR)

The court found that neither the plaintiff nor the absent defendant had shown sufficient cause to prevent dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. The plaintiff's advocate indicated an intention to withdraw the suit due to the defendant's departure from the suit land, and no substantive objection or reason to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 990 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Clarence Nyaga Mbuih; Defendant: Frankline Kinyua
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 158 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Land and Property / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Rules, Withdrawal of Suit, Non Appearance of Defendant
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Order 17 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Rules Withdrawal of Suit Non Appearance of Defendant

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clarence Nyaga Mbuih

Plaintiff

Frankline Kinyua

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether any sufficient cause has been shown to prevent dismissal of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that neither the plaintiff nor the absent defendant had shown sufficient cause to prevent dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. The plaintiff's advocate indicated an intention to withdraw the suit due to the defendant's departure from the suit land, and no substantive objection or reason to continue the proceedings was advanced. In the absence of any cause shown to the satisfaction of the court, and pursuant to Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit. No order as to costs was made, reflecting the lack of contest or active prosecution by either party.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • No order as to costs.