Fredrick Mutegi Thara v M’Arimi M’Athara & 2 others [2017] KEELC 699 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 699 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Panel
- FM Njoroge
- Case number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 11 of 2017
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Panel
- FM Njoroge
- Case number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 11 of 2017
- 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 to the parties. Neither the applicant nor the respondents appeared in court or provided any explanation or justification for the delay in prosecuting the suit. In accordance with Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that the failure of the parties to show cause warranted dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit, emphasizing the importance of timely prosecution of cases and adherence to procedural rules.
Court disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
02
Material facts
Parties
Fredrick Mutegi Thara
ApplicantM’Arimi M’Athara & 2 Others
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / 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
- The applicant did not appear in court and did not provide any argument or reason to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Respondent
- The respondents did not appear in court and did not provide any argument or reason to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
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 no step is taken by either party for one year, and the parties fail to show cause upon notice.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the notice to show cause was properly issued to the parties. Neither the applicant nor the respondents appeared in court or provided any explanation or justification for the delay in prosecuting the suit. In accordance with Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that the failure of the parties to show cause warranted dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit, emphasizing the importance of timely prosecution of cases and adherence to procedural rules.
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 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION CASE NO. 11 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION CASE NO. 21 OF 2014
FREDRICK MUTEGI THARA......................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
M’ARIMI M’ATHARA & 2 OTHERS..................RESPONDENTS
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on 20. 12. 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 17rule 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 20th day of December, 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.