[2017] KEELC 624 (KLR)
The court found that no step had been taken in the suit for nearly three years since the last action by the plaintiff in February 2015. The explanation provided was the plaintiff's prolonged illness and recent death. However, the court held that no satisfactory cause had been shown to prevent dismissal for want of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 624 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Godfrey Mate; Defendant: The Honourable Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 173 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2, Inordinate Delay, Notice to Show Cause
- 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
Godfrey Mate
Plaintiff
The Honourable Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / 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 due to inordinate delay by the parties.
- 2 Whether any satisfactory cause has been shown to prevent dismissal under Order 17 rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that no step had been taken in the suit for nearly three years since the last action by the plaintiff in February 2015. The explanation provided was the plaintiff's prolonged illness and recent death. However, the court held that no satisfactory cause had been shown to prevent dismissal for want of prosecution as required by Order 17 rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The delay was deemed inordinate, and the absence of action by both parties justified dismissal of the suit. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and made no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LANDCOURT
AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO.173 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC CASE NO. 186 OF 2011
GODFREY MATE.........................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL.......DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This ruling concerns a Notice to Show Cause which was issued to the parties on 30th November, 2017. The parties were to show cause on 18th December, 2017.
2. On 18th December, 2017, Mr. Otieno, holding brief for Mr. Njeru Nyaga for the plaintiff, told the court that the plaintiff had been sick for a long time and that explained why no step had been taken in the suit for a period of more than one year as envisaged by Order 17 rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. He told the court that the plaintiff died recently and was buried two weeks ago.
3. This court expresses its sadness regarding the plaintiff’s demise.
4. Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules reads as follows:
(1) In any suit in which no application has been made or step taken by either party for one year, the court may give notice in writing to the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed, and if cause is not shown to its satisfaction, may dismiss the suit.
(2) If cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court it may make such orders as it thinks fit to obtain expeditious hearing of the suit.
(3) Any party to the suit may apply for its dismissal as provided in sub-rule 1.
(4) The court may dismiss the suit for non-compliance with any direction given under this order.
5. I do note that the last step taken by the plaintiff in this matter took place on 5th February, 2015 when the plaintiff’s advocate filed a letter dated 25thNovember, 2015 asking the defendant to send his representative to court to fix a pre-trial date. No action has been taken by both parties in the suit since then.
6. It is clear that for close to 3 years no step has been taken. I opine that this constitutes inordinate delay in the hearing and determination of this suit. I find that no satisfactory cause has been shown to the satisfaction of this court that this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of Order 17 rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
7. In the circumstances, this suit is dismissed.
8. There is no order as to costs.
9. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 20th day of December, 2017
in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Parties absent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE