[2017] KEHC 7785 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to attend court and did not provide any reasons to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The defendant supported the dismissal. The court was satisfied that the notice to show cause had been properly issued and that neither party had...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 7785 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Gilbert Kathenya; Defendant: Evangeline Kanyua Mwiandi (being sued as the administratrix of the estate of Mwiandi Kaimbiru (deceased))
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 33 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Environment Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2, Estate Administration, 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
Gilbert Kathenya
Plaintiff
Evangeline Kanyua Mwiandi (being sued as the administratrix of the estate of Mwiandi Kaimbiru (deceased))
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for 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.
- 2 Whether the parties have shown sufficient cause to prevent dismissal of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to attend court and did not provide any reasons to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The defendant supported the dismissal. The court was satisfied that the notice to show cause had been properly issued and that neither party had demonstrated sufficient cause to prevent dismissal. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and dismissed the suit with costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant.
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs are awarded to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO 33 OF 2017
FORMRLY MERU ELC CASE NO.8 OF 2014
GILBERT KATHENYA…………………….……………....………....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EVANGELINE KANYUA MWIANDI (being sued as the administratrix of the
estate of MWIANDI KAIMBIRU(DECEASED)………….....…...DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This matter came up today for parties 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. I find that the apposite notice had been properly issued.
3. The plaintiff has failed to come to court to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed.
4. The defendant has supported dismissal of the suit with costs.
5. The parties have not shown to the satisfaction of the court why this suit should NOTbe dismissed.
6. This suit is dismissed.
7. Costs are awarded to the defendant.
8. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 21st day of February, 2017 in the presence of :
CA: Ndegwa
D.J. Mbaya for the Defendant
Plaintiff or Advocate Absent
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE