[2014] KEHC 5993 (KLR)
The court found that the suit had been inactive for 24 years, with the last appearance by the parties nearly three years prior. No party appeared or provided any cause to prevent dismissal. In accordance with Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 5993 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Daniel M'Itome; Defendant: Eraso M'Itiye; Defendant: Andrew M'Inab
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 54 of 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2, Notice to Show Cause
- 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
Daniel M'Itome
Plaintiff
Eraso M'Itiye
Defendant
Andrew M'Inab
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the suit had been inactive for 24 years, with the last appearance by the parties nearly three years prior. No party appeared or provided any cause to prevent dismissal. In accordance with Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, as no sufficient cause was shown to justify its continuation.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
HCC NO. 54 OF 1990
DANIEL M'ITOME......................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ERASO M'ITIYE..............................................................1ST DEFENDANT
ANDREW M'INAB...........................................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
Notice to show cause under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure rules was properly issued but there was no appearance in court to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed. The suit has been in court for the last 24 years. The parties last appeared before the Hon. Lady Justice M. Kassango on 27. 6.2011, almost 3 years ago.
No cause has been shown to the satisfaction of this court that this suit should not be dismissed. I hereby dismiss it.
It is so ordered.
Delivered in Open Court at Meru this 27th day of March, 2014 before:
Cc. Daniel
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE