[2014] KEHC 2488 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had shown sufficient cause for the delay in prosecuting the suit, particularly given the serious consequences of dismissal, which would potentially render the plaintiff and his family homeless. The court exercised its discretion under Order 17, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Act to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 2488 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Gilbert Miriti; Defendant: Japhet Kinyua M'Muthamia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 98 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Summons / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit not dismissed; cause shown to the satisfaction of the court.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Adverse Possession, Originating Summons, Land Ownership 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 Miriti
Plaintiff
Japhet Kinyua M'Muthamia
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether sufficient cause has been shown to prevent dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution under Order 17, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Act.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff's explanation for delay and the nature of the claim (adverse possession) justify retention of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had shown sufficient cause for the delay in prosecuting the suit, particularly given the serious consequences of dismissal, which would potentially render the plaintiff and his family homeless. The court exercised its discretion under Order 17, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Act to retain the suit, accepting the plaintiff's undertaking to prosecute the matter with speed. The nature of the claim, being one for adverse possession and involving the plaintiff's residence, was a significant factor in the court's decision not to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
Suit not dismissed; cause shown to the satisfaction of the court.
Orders
- The suit is not dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
HCC 98/ 2010 (OS)
GILBERT MIRITI...................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JAPHET KINYUA M'MUTHAMIA........................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
A notice had been issued for the parties to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in accordance with order 17, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Cause was to be shown on 22. 7.2014. The advocate for the applicant explained that the suit had been brought to Court by way of Originating Summons. It concerned a piece of land where the plaintiff was living and if the case was dismissed he and his family would be rendered homeless and destitute. In this suit, the plaintiff is seeking ownership through adverse possession.
The plaintiff undertook to have the suit prosecuted with speed, if the court agrees not to dismiss it.
I find that cause has been shown to the satisfaction of the court why the suit should not be dismissed. Accordingly, this suit is not dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Delivered in Open Court this 22nd day of July, 2014 in the presence of:
Cc Daniel/Lilian
Kimathi for plaintiff
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE