[2018] KEELC 4825 (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 absence of any step taken in the suit and the failure of the parties to show cause justified the dismissal of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 4825 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Frankline Munene Kirimo; Defendant: Ediel Kinyua
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 184 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property / 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, Failure to Prosecute, Case Management
- 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
Frankline Munene Kirimo
Plaintiff
Ediel Kinyua
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property / 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 absence of any step taken in the suit and the failure of the parties to show cause justified the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution.
Orders
- The suit is dismissed.
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. 184 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC. 110 OF 2013
FRANKLINE MUNENE KIRIMO.......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EDIEL KINYUA…………………... DEFENDANT
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on 18. 1.2018 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 18th day of January, 2018 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Parties not in court
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE