[2017] KEELC 3043 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause why the appeal, which had remained unheard for 16 years, should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The submissions filed by the appellant did not satisfy the court that there was any justification for the delay or that the matter should remain...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3043 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Geremano Mugo Muga; Respondent: Miriti Mugo; Respondent: Kirunja Mugo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 2 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Show Cause Proceedings, Appeals in Land Disputes
- 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
Geremano Mugo Muga
Appellant
Miriti Mugo
Respondent
Kirunja Mugo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the prolonged delay of 16 years in prosecuting the appeal justifies dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause why the appeal, which had remained unheard for 16 years, should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The submissions filed by the appellant did not satisfy the court that there was any justification for the delay or that the matter should remain pending. The court agreed with the respondent that such a prolonged delay indicated a lack of diligence and that the interests of justice required the dismissal of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CA CASE NO. 02 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC CA CASE NO.56 OF 2001
GEREMANO MUGO MUGA………………….….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MIRITI MUGO…………………………….1ST DEFENDANT
KIRUNJA MUGO………………………...2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Parties were supposed to come to court on 22. 3.2017 to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 17 rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. On 22. 3.2017, Mr. Kiongo told the court that he was holding brief for Mr. Kioga for the Appellant. He told the court that Mr. Kioga was eager to have the appeal heard. He, however, told the court that he had no further instructions.
3. Miss Kaaria holding brief for Murango Mwenda for the 2nd respondent told the court that this appeal was filed in the year 2001 and was therefore 16 years old. She told the court that the period the appeal had gone unheard is testimony that the appellant was not diligent in prosecuting his case. She urged the court to dismiss the appeal. She also told the court that the appellant had not shown cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.
4. Advocate M. M. Kioga filed submissions on 3. 4.2017 on behalf of the Appellant, only hours before this ruling was to be delivered. I have perused the submissions and the accompanying authorities. There is a requirement that the court should be satisfied that the suit should not be dismissed. These submissions by the appellant do not satisfy this court that this suit should not be dismissed.
5. I agree with Miss Kaaria, holding brief for Murango Mwenda for the Respondent, that for an appeal to stay unheard for 16 years, there must be a serious problem. I also agree with her that the appellant has not shown cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.
6. I find that the parties have not shown cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.
7. In the circumstances, this appeal is dismissed.
8. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Meru this 4th day of April, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Manasses Kariuki h/b Murango Mwenda for the Respondent
Geremano Mugo Muga – Appellant
Kijaru h/b Kioga for the appellant
P. M. NJOROGE,
JUDGE.