[2016] KEHC 902 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 902 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over three years since its transfer and registration in the High Court. This inordinate and inexcusable delay was not explained or justified by the plaintiffs, who also failed to appear or respond to the application. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 902 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Gedion M'Ikunyua (suing as legal representative of the estate of Joyce Gatwiri M'Ikunyua); Plaintiff: Janet Nkirote Ikunyua; Defendant: Japhet Kithinji Muguna
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 156 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Abuse of Court Process, Adjudication Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Abuse of Court Process Adjudication Land Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gedion M'Ikunyua (suing as legal representative of the estate of Joyce Gatwiri M'Ikunyua)

Plaintiff

Janet Nkirote Ikunyua

Plaintiff

Japhet Kithinji Muguna

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate and inexcusable delay by the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the continued pendency of the suit amounts to an abuse of the court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for over three years since its transfer and registration in the High Court. This inordinate and inexcusable delay was not explained or justified by the plaintiffs, who also failed to appear or respond to the application. The court held that such delay demonstrates a lack of interest in pursuing the matter and amounts to an abuse of the court process. In the interest of justice and to prevent further prejudice to the defendant, the court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules 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.
  • Costs of the application and the suit are awarded to the defendant.