[2018] KEELC 3321 (KLR)
The court found that the ex-parte applicant and their advocate failed to attend court and did not show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court was satisfied that proper notice had been issued to the parties. In the absence of any explanation or action from the applicant, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3321 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: County Council of Tharaka; Applicant: County Government of Tharaka Nithi; Respondent: Tharaka North District Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: Bernard K. Nkanga; Applicant: Agnes Matiira Kamwara
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 1 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / 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, Judicial Review Procedure, Land Disputes Tribunal
- 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
County Council of Tharaka
Applicant
County Government of Tharaka Nithi
Applicant
Tharaka North District Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Bernard K. Nkanga
Interested Party
Agnes Matiira Kamwara
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the ex-parte applicant and their advocate failed to attend court and did not show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court was satisfied that proper notice had been issued to the parties. In the absence of any explanation or action from the applicant, and upon the request of the Respondent and Interested Party, the court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit. The court further awarded costs to the Respondent and Interested Party as the successful parties in the application for dismissal.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs are awarded to the Respondent and the Interested Party.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA JUDICIAL REVIEW CASE NO. 01 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU JUDICIAL REVIEW CASE NO. 27 OF 2010
COUNTY COUNCIL OF THARAKA.......................EX-PARTE APPLICANT
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF
THARAKA NITHI.................................INTENDED EX-PARTE APPLICANT
VERSUS
THARAKA NORTH DISTRICT
LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL...................................................RESPONDENT
BERNARD K. NKANGA.................................................INTERESTED PARTY
AGNES MATIIRA
KAMWARA........................APPLICANT/INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on 17. 5.2018 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 17 rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, only the Respondent and the Interested Party turned up. The ex-parte applicant was not in court. His advocate was also not in court.
2. I am satisfied that the apposite notice was properly issued.
3. Mr. Kiongo and Mr. Mutegi for the Respondent and Interested Party, respectively, asked the court to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution with costs to their clients.
4. I find that the parties have failed to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 17 rule 2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
5. The suit, therefore, merits dismissal.
6. The suit is dismissed.
7. Costs are awarded to the Respondent and the Interested Party.
8. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open Court at Chuka this 17th day of May, 2018
in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Kiongo present for the Respondent
Mutegi present for the Interested Party
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE