[2017] KEELC 3047 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3047 (KLR)

The court found that the suit had already been dismissed by Hon. Justice Lenaola on 2nd June 2006, and therefore, it could not be dismissed a second time. The court further held that, even if the suit had not been previously dismissed, it had abated against the defendant under Order 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3047 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Gilbert Kathenya Mukungi; Defendant: Mwiandi Kaimbiru; Interested Party: Evangeline Kanyua Mwiandi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 89 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit stands dismissed
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Abatement of Suit, Order 17 Rule 2, Order 24 Civil Procedure Rules
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Abatement of Suit Order 17 Rule 2 Order 24 Civil Procedure Rules

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gilbert Kathenya Mukungi

Plaintiff

Mwiandi Kaimbiru

Defendant

Evangeline Kanyua Mwiandi

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the suit had already been dismissed by a previous court order.
  3. 3 Whether the suit had abated against the defendant under Order 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the suit had already been dismissed by Hon. Justice Lenaola on 2nd June 2006, and therefore, it could not be dismissed a second time. The court further held that, even if the suit had not been previously dismissed, it had abated against the defendant under Order 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules due to failure to substitute the defendant. Consequently, the court confirmed that the suit stands dismissed and declined to make any further orders of dismissal for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

suit stands dismissed

Orders

  • The suit stands dismissed as previously ordered by the court.
  • No further orders of dismissal are made.