[2017] KEELC 372 (KLR)
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....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 372 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Francis Kiragu Muriankuru; Defendant: Daniel Simba
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 153 of 2012
- 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, Order 17 Rule 2, Land Dispute
- 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 Kiragu Muriankuru
Plaintiff
Daniel Simba
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.
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
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
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