Francis Kiragu Muriankuru v Daniel Simba [2017] KEELC 372 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 372 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Panel
- FM Njoroge
- Case number
- Environment & Land Case 153 of 2012
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Panel
- FM Njoroge
- Case number
- Environment & Land Case 153 of 2012
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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 there was no justification provided for the delay. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution.
Court disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
02
Material facts
Parties
Francis Kiragu Muriankuru
PlaintiffDaniel Simba
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- No arguments were presented as neither party appeared in court to show cause against dismissal.
- Respondent
- No arguments were presented as neither party appeared in court to show cause against dismissal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
A suit may be dismissed for want of prosecution if parties fail to take steps to prosecute the matter as required by law.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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 there was no justification provided for the delay. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution.
Court disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Source and reliance status
Environment and Land Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Environment and Land Court
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO. 153 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC 47 OF 2012
FRANCIS KIRAGU MURIANKURU………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DANIEL SIMBA………………………….DEFENDANT
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on 29. 11. 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 29th day of November, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Parties not in court
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.