[2017] KEELC 2239 (KLR)
The court found that the notice to show cause was properly issued and that neither party appeared to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. In accordance with Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, as no steps...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2239 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Francis Iguna Mwebia; Respondent: Julius Mugao Kiragara
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 86 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 42 Rule 35, Appeal 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
Francis Iguna Mwebia
Appellant
Julius Mugao Kiragara
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 42 Rule 35(2) 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 show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. In accordance with Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, as no steps had been taken by the parties to advance the matter.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC [CA] CASE NO 86 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC [CA] CASE NO. 85 OF 2013
FRANCIS IGUNA MWEBIA……....……………………………. APPELLANT
VERSUS
JULIUS MUGAO KIRAGARA………………………………… RESPONDENT
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on 18. 7.2017 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 42 rule 35(2) 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 Appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of Order 42 Rule 35 (2) 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 18th day of July, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Julius Mugao Kiragara - respondent present
Francis Iguna Mwebia - appellant absent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE