[2014] KEHC 6119 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had not taken any steps or made any applications in the suit for almost 27 years. Despite being given notice to show cause under Order 17 Rule 2(1), the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient justification to prevent dismissal. The court was not satisfied...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 6119 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Erustus Mbaabu; Plaintiff: Jackson M'Amuru; Defendant: M'Mburugu M'Rinkanya; Defendant: Land Registrar – Meru; Defendant: Mulwa Amuru alias M'Anampiu Amuru; Defendant: Isaiah Mutua Anampiu; Defendant: Joseph Gachui; Defendant: Meru County Council; Defendant: Nyambene County Council; Defendant: M'Itaru Likaunye; Defendant: Dominic Gikaine; Defendant: Rithira Richoro
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 9 of 1987
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal Under Order 17 Rule 2(1)
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2, Show Cause Procedure
- 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
Erustus Mbaabu
Plaintiff
Jackson M'Amuru
Plaintiff
M'Mburugu M'Rinkanya
Defendant
Land Registrar – Meru
Defendant
Mulwa Amuru alias M'Anampiu Amuru
Defendant
Isaiah Mutua Anampiu
Defendant
Joseph Gachui
Defendant
Meru County Council
Defendant
Nyambene County Council
Defendant
M'Itaru Likaunye
Defendant
Dominic Gikaine
Defendant
Rithira Richoro
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal Under Order 17 Rule 2(1)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have shown sufficient cause to prevent dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1).
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had not taken any steps or made any applications in the suit for almost 27 years. Despite being given notice to show cause under Order 17 Rule 2(1), the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient justification to prevent dismissal. The court was not satisfied that any cause had been shown to warrant the continuation of the suit. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution, and costs were awarded to the 10th defendant.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs are awarded only to the 10th defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL SUIT NO. 9 OF 1987
ERUSTUS MBAABU.…....................................................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
JACKSON M'AMURU.........................................................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M'MBURUGU M'RINKANYA...................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
LAND REGISTRAR – MERU..................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
MULWA AMURU ALIAS M'ANAMPIU AMURU...........................................3RD DEFENDANT
ISAIAH MUTUA ANAMPIU..........................................................................4TH DEFENDANT
JOSEPH GACHUI..........................................................................................5TH DEFENDANT
MERU COUNTY COUNCIL.......................................................................6TH DEFENDANT
NYAMBENE COUNTY COUNCIL............................................................7TH DEFENDANT
M'ITARU LIKAUNYE..................................................................................8TH DEFENDANT
DOMINIC GIKAINE.....................................................................................9TH DEFENDANT
RITHIRA RICHORO................................................................................10TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
Order 17 Rule 2(1) says:
“In any suit in which no application has been made or step taken by either party for one year, the court may give notice in writing to the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed, and if cause is not shown to its satisfaction, may dismiss the suit.”
Notice was given to the plaintiff to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed. The case has been in court for almost 27 years. No application had been made or step taken as required by Order 17 rule 2(1). I have perused his affidavit sworn on 19th March, 2014 and filed in court on 20th March, 2014. No cause has been shown to my satisfaction that this suit should not be dismissed. In the circumstances, I dismiss the suit.
Costs are awarded ONLYto the 10th defendant.
Delivered in Open Court at Meru this 20th day of March, 2014 in the presence of :
Kiautha Arithi for 10th defendant
Erustus Mbaabu plaintiff
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE