[2024] KEELC 4398 (KLR)
The court found that neither party complied with its directions to file written submissions in respect of the application to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. As a result, the application itself was dismissed for non-compliance with the court's orders. The court did not make a substantive determination on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 4398 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: County Government of Tana River; Defendant: Ali Bubu Dabale; Defendant: Ahmed Bubu Dabale; Defendant: Mahad Ndamea Bubu; Defendant: Ahmed Mohamed Hassan; Defendant: Adan Bulle Hassan; Defendant: Abdiaziz Mohamed Shire
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 172 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Suit for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed for non-compliance with court orders
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Pretrial Procedure, Case Management, Order 17 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Rules
- 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 Government of Tana River
Plaintiff
Ali Bubu Dabale
Defendant
Ahmed Bubu Dabale
Defendant
Mahad Ndamea Bubu
Defendant
Ahmed Mohamed Hassan
Defendant
Adan Bulle Hassan
Defendant
Abdiaziz Mohamed Shire
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Suit for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the parties complied with court directions regarding filing of written submissions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that neither party complied with its directions to file written submissions in respect of the application to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. As a result, the application itself was dismissed for non-compliance with the court's orders. The court did not make a substantive determination on the merits of the application for dismissal for want of prosecution, but instead exercised its discretion to dismiss the application due to the parties' failure to adhere to procedural requirements and court directions.
Court Disposition
application dismissed for non-compliance with court orders
Orders
- The application dated 6th November 2023 is dismissed for non-compliance with court directions.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
County Government of Tana River v Dabale & 5 others (Environment & Land Case 172 of 2018) [2024] KEELC 4398 (KLR) (30 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 4398 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Environment & Land Case 172 of 2018
FM Njoroge, J
May 30, 2024
Between
County Government of Tana River
Plaintiff
and
Ali Bubu Dabale
1st Defendant
Ahmed Bubu Dabale
2nd Defendant
Mahad Ndamea Bubu
3rd Defendant
Ahmed Mohamed Hassan
4th Defendant
Adan Bulle Hassan
5th Defendant
Abdiaziz Mohamed Shire
6th Defendant
Ruling
1. For determination is the Notice of Motion dated 6th November 2023 seeking the following orders:a.The honourable court be pleased to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit with costs for want of prosecution.b.That the costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is premised on the grounds set out on its face and the supporting affidavit of Barke Bujra, advocate in conduct of the matter who deponed that the Plaintiff filed this matter on 30th August 2018 and since then they have never taken any action to prosecute the matter further. That the plaintiff had concurrently filed an application which was heard and determined as per the ruling dated 30th January 2020 whose fruits they have been enjoying at the defendants’ expense. He stated that the Plaintiff has lost interest in the suit as they have never set the matter down for hearing thus the suit should be dismissed.
3. In response, the Plaintiff filed a replying affidavit sworn by Patience Lugo, Advocate, stating that on 23rd May 2023, they wrote to the defendants inviting them to fix the matter for pretrial directions. The matter was then fixed for pretrial on 10th July 2023 which date was served upon the defendants. She stated that on 10th July 2023 all parties were present before the Deputy Registrar and the defendants requested for 30 days to comply and the matter was adjourned to 11th September 2023; that unfortunately the matter did not proceed on that date as the Deputy Registrar was proceeding on transfer. Further, on 13th December 2023, they received an email from court informing them that the matter had been scheduled for hearing of an application on 12th February 2024; that from the above history, the application does not meet the threshold set out under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
DISPOSITION. 4. The court directed that the application be disposed be disposed of by way of written submissions. At the time of writing this ruling, none of the parties had complied with the court’s directions of filing written submissions. As such, the application is dismissed for non-compliance with this court’s orders.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ON THIS 30TH DAY OF MAY 2024. MWANGI NJOROGEJUDGE, ELC, MALINDI.