[2017] KEELC 964 (KLR)
The court found that no sufficient cause was shown by the parties to justify the continuation of the suit, as no step had been taken in nearly four years since the last ruling granting injunctive orders. The plaintiff's explanation regarding the change of advocate and ongoing negotiations was not deemed adequate to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 964 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Kinyua Bedford; Defendant: Co-operative Bank of Kenya
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 155 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Injunctive Orders, Case Inactivity
- 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
David Kinyua Bedford
Plaintiff
Co-operative Bank of Kenya
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / 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.
- 2 Whether any sufficient cause has been shown to prevent dismissal of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that no sufficient cause was shown by the parties to justify the continuation of the suit, as no step had been taken in nearly four years since the last ruling granting injunctive orders. The plaintiff's explanation regarding the change of advocate and ongoing negotiations was not deemed adequate to prevent dismissal. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and dismissed the suit for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO 155 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC CASE NO. 106 OF 2012
DAVID KINYUA BEDFORD………………………………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF KENYA………………………...……DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Parties were to come to court on 29. 11. 2018 to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 17 rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Only the plaintiff attended court. He told the court that the advocate who was handling the matter was made a judge. He also said that he was negotiating a settlement with the defendant.
3. I do note that the firm of advocates which is on record as representing the plaintiff is still in existence. I note that since I delivered a ruling on 19. 3.2014, which ruling gave the plaintiff injunctive orders, no step has ever been taken in this matter. This is nearly 4 years ago.
4. I find that the parties have not shown to the satisfaction of this court that the suit should NOT be dismissed.
5. In the circumstances, this suit is dismissed.
6. No costs are awarded
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 29th day of November, 2017
in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Daniel Kinyua Bedford - plaintiff
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE