[2015] KEHC 2387 (KLR)
The court found that since the defendants, through their advocate, orally applied to withdraw their application for dismissal for want of prosecution and security for costs, and the application was not opposed by the other parties, it was appropriate to mark the application as withdrawn. The court exercised its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 2387 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Elizabeth Kairigo (suing as the administrator of the estate of Baikalaba M'Limungi); Defendant: M'Ikiao Amuru; Defendant: Silvesta Lubetaa; Defendant: Makelina Kanocia Francis; Defendant: Godfrey Mugao Amuru; Defendant: Dominic Murangiri; Defendant: Philip Kairithia Mugwika; Defendant: The Tigania West Dist. Adj & Settl. Officer
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 53 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution and Security for Costs
- Outcome
- Application withdrawn and settled with no order as to costs.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Security for Costs, Withdrawal of Application
- 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
Elizabeth Kairigo (suing as the administrator of the estate of Baikalaba M'Limungi)
Plaintiff
M'Ikiao Amuru
Defendant
Silvesta Lubetaa
Defendant
Makelina Kanocia Francis
Defendant
Godfrey Mugao Amuru
Defendant
Dominic Murangiri
Defendant
Philip Kairithia Mugwika
Defendant
The Tigania West Dist. Adj & Settl. Officer
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution and Security for Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff should be ordered to deposit security for costs.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded for the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since the defendants, through their advocate, orally applied to withdraw their application for dismissal for want of prosecution and security for costs, and the application was not opposed by the other parties, it was appropriate to mark the application as withdrawn. The court exercised its discretion to settle the matter with no order as to costs, thereby concluding the application without addressing the merits of the original prayers for dismissal or security for costs.
Court Disposition
Application withdrawn and settled with no order as to costs.
Orders
- The application dated 10th July, 2013 is marked as withdrawn.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL SUIT NO. 53 OF 2012
ELIZABETH KAIRIGO (suing as the administrator of the estate of
BAIKALABA M'LIMUNGI.............................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M'IKIAO AMURU.............................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
SILVESTA LUBETAA......................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
MAKELINA KANOCIA FRANCIS..................................................3RD DEFENDANT
GODFREY MUGAO AMURU.........................................................4TH DEFENDANT
DOMINIC MURANGIRI...................................................................5TH DEFENDANT
PHILIP KAIRITHIA MUGWIKA.......................................................6TH DEFENDANT
THE TIGANIA WEST DIST. ADJ & SETTL. OFFICER................7TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This application, by the defendants, is dated 10th July, 2013.
It seeks the following orders:
1. THATthis suit be dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. THAT in the event that this suit is not dismissed the plaintiff be ordered to deposit security of cost in court.
3. THAT the cost of this application be in cause.
It has the following grounds:
1. THAT the plaintiff in this case is not serous in prosecuting her case.
2. THAT since the filing of this suit the plaintiff has never taken any step to prosecute the matter.
3. THAT the plaintiff filed HCC NO. 98 OF 2011 against the same parties over the same subject matter and after failing to prosecute the same she withdrew the same.
4. THATthe plaintiff in this suit has failed to pay costs awarded in HCC NO. 98 OF 2011.
During mention for directions on 28. 9.2015, Mr. Ondieki for 1st to 7th defendants, told the court that in the interest of expeditious disposal of the suit, he wished to withdraw the application. His oral application was not opposed by the other parties. In the circumstances, the application is marked as withdrawn and settled with no order as to costs.
It is so ordered.
Delivered in Open court at Meru this 28th day of September, 2015 in the presence of:
Cc. Lilian/Daniel
Omwega h/b Njiru for the Plaintiff
Ondieki for 1st to 7th defendants
Kieti for 8th defendants
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE