[2017] KEHC 7732 (KLR)
The court found that the notice to show cause was properly issued and that neither party appeared to provide reasons against dismissal. In accordance with Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that the suit had not been prosecuted and that no cause was shown for its continuation....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 7732 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Dario Manyani M’Kaboro; Defendant: Intex Construction Company
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 36 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property / 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, Failure to Prosecute, Case Management
- 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
Dario Manyani M’Kaboro
Plaintiff
Intex Construction Company
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property / 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 notice to show cause was properly issued and that neither party appeared to provide reasons against dismissal. In accordance with Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that the suit had not been prosecuted and that no cause was shown for its continuation. Therefore, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution.
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
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO 36 OF 2017
FORMRLY MERU ELC CASE NO.101 OF 2014
DARIO MANYANI M’KABORO........................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
INTEX CONSTRUCTION COMPANY..........................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on 21. 2.2017 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, they did not turn up.
2. I am satisfied that the apposite notice was properly issued.
3. 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.
The suit, therefore, merits dismissal.
4. The suit is dismissed.
5. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 21st day of February, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Parties present
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE