[2015] KEHC 7910 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 7910 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to comply with its directive to file written submissions within the prescribed period, despite being granted adequate time. This non-compliance prevented the respondent from filing submissions and demonstrated a lack of diligence and interest in prosecuting the application....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 7910 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jacob Mwirigi Ngari; Plaintiff: Alice Ngari; Plaintiff: David Kinoti Ngari; Plaintiff: Philiph Muthomi Ngari; Plaintiff: Koome Isaac Ngari; Plaintiff: Lydia Kathure Isaac; Plaintiff: Judah Kimathi Ngari; Defendant: M'Ringera M'Aburia
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Land Case 240 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Inhibition Orders, Family Land Disputes, Interlocutory Applications, Failure to Prosecute
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Inhibition Orders Family Land Disputes Interlocutory Applications Failure to Prosecute

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Mwirigi Ngari

Plaintiff

Alice Ngari

Plaintiff

David Kinoti Ngari

Plaintiff

Philiph Muthomi Ngari

Plaintiff

Koome Isaac Ngari

Plaintiff

Lydia Kathure Isaac

Plaintiff

Judah Kimathi Ngari

Plaintiff

M'Ringera M'Aburia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an inhibition order restraining the defendant from dealing with the suit land parcels pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether failure by the applicants to file written submissions as directed warrants dismissal of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to comply with its directive to file written submissions within the prescribed period, despite being granted adequate time. This non-compliance prevented the respondent from filing submissions and demonstrated a lack of diligence and interest in prosecuting the application. The court held that compliance with its orders is essential for the orderly administration of justice and that failure to do so warrants dismissal of the application. Consequently, the application for inhibition was dismissed, with costs to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 29th August, 2013 is dismissed.
  • Costs to be in the cause.