[2018] KEELC 1615 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate seriousness in prosecuting the suit, as evidenced by the repeated dismissals and lack of progress since the case was filed in 2004. The application to set aside the dismissal order of 6.2.2018 was not merited, and the plaintiffs had not provided...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 1615 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Daniel Muthuri; Plaintiff: Benson Kinoti; Defendant: M’Ikiara Karigi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 77 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Orders, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit
- 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 Muthuri
Plaintiff
Benson Kinoti
Plaintiff
M’Ikiara Karigi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should set aside the dismissal order of 6.2.2018 for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated sufficient seriousness in prosecuting the suit to warrant reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate seriousness in prosecuting the suit, as evidenced by the repeated dismissals and lack of progress since the case was filed in 2004. The application to set aside the dismissal order of 6.2.2018 was not merited, and the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient grounds to warrant reinstatement. The court emphasized the importance of diligent prosecution of cases and the need to avoid unnecessary delays in the administration of justice. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the defendant, and the file was marked as closed pursuant to the earlier judgment.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 13.3.2018 is dismissed with costs to the defendant.
- The file is marked as closed pursuant to the judgment of 4.7.2013.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 77 OF 2004
DANIEL MUTHURI.......................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
BENSON KINOTI..........................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M’IKIARA KARIGI..........................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This ruling is in respect of the application filed on 13. 3.2018 whereby applicant (1st plaintiff) is seeking for the setting aside of the orders of this court given on 6. 2.2018 whereby applicants application filed on 16. 12. 2016 was dismissed.
2. There are grounds set out on the face of the application as well as a supporting affidavit.
3. The application was opposed.
4. I have considered all the arguments raised herein and the written rival submissions.
5. I find that 6. 2.2018 was not the first time the court was dismissing the application. I had dismissed this application earlier on 29. 5.2017. In my ruling delivered on 6. 12. 2017, I reinstated the said application. It was dismissed on 6. 2.2018 for want of prosecution.
6. This is a case of 2004. The plaintiffs don’t appear to be serious in prosecution of this suit. I find that the application of 13. 3.2018 is not merited. The same is dismissed with costs to defendant.
7. Pursuant to the judgment of 4. 7.2013, this file is marked as closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS DAY OF 3RD OCTOBER, 2018 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Galgalo/Faith
Mammu holding brief for Otieno C for applicant
Nyakwara for respondent
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE