[2017] KEELC 3138 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to attend court and did not provide any explanation or show cause as to why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. In accordance with Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that there was no justification to keep the suit...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3138 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Daniel Njeru Karoge; Plaintiff: Mariam Kamunyu Njeru; Defendant: Muiru M'Imange; Defendant: Njeru Muiru; Defendant: Mutinda Muiru; Defendant: Rukiami Muiru; Defendant: Mucunku Muruma; Defendant: Nyaga Muruma; Defendant: Simon Kirea Kinoto; Defendant: Mwathi Kinoto; Defendant: Njeru Kariuki; Defendant: Murithi Njeru
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 07 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2, Case Management, Land Disputes
- 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 Njeru Karoge
Plaintiff
Mariam Kamunyu Njeru
Plaintiff
Muiru M'Imange
Defendant
Njeru Muiru
Defendant
Mutinda Muiru
Defendant
Rukiami Muiru
Defendant
Mucunku Muruma
Defendant
Nyaga Muruma
Defendant
Simon Kirea Kinoto
Defendant
Mwathi Kinoto
Defendant
Njeru Kariuki
Defendant
Murithi Njeru
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have shown sufficient cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to attend court and did not provide any explanation or show cause as to why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. In accordance with Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that there was no justification to keep the suit alive. The absence of any action or representation by the plaintiffs demonstrated a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter, warranting dismissal of the suit.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA MISC JR CASE NO. 07OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU CIVIL SUIT NO. 117 OF 2012
DANIEL NJERU KAROGE……………..……1ST PLAINTIFF
MARIAM KAMUNYU NJERU……….………2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUIRU M’IMANGE…………………......….1ST DEFENDANT
NJERU MUIRU………………………..…....2ND DEFENDANT
MUTINDA MUIRU…………………….….…3RD DEFENDANT
RUKIAMI MUIRU…………………………....4TH DEFENDANT
MUCUNKU MURUMA……………….….….5TH DEFENDANT
NYAGA MURUMA…………………….……..6TH DEFENDANT
SIMON KIREA KINOTO…………….………7TH DEFENDANT
MWATHI KINOTO………………….……...…8TH DEFENDANT
NJERU KARIUKI……………………..…...….9TH DEFENDANT
MURITHI NJERU…………………….…..…10TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. On 15. 3.2017 when the parties were scheduled to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 17 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Mr. Kiongo asked the court to dismiss the suit because the applicants had failed to come to court to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed.
2. I find that the parties have not shown cause to the satisfaction of the court why the suit should not be dismissed.
3. In the circumstances, this suit is dismissed.
4. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 15th day of March, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Kiongo for the Respondents
P. M. NJOROGE,
JUDGE.