[2017] KEELC 380 (KLR)
The court found that the notice to show cause was properly issued and that neither party attended court to provide reasons against dismissal. In the absence of any cause shown, and pursuant to Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court was satisfied that the suit had not been prosecuted and therefore...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 380 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: James Gaichu Nkirani; Defendant: Ayub Mucheke Murigo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 160 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property / Ruling on 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, Land Dispute
- 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
James Gaichu Nkirani
Plaintiff
Ayub Mucheke Murigo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property / Ruling on 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.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the notice to show cause was properly issued and that neither party attended court to provide reasons against dismissal. In the absence of any cause shown, and pursuant to Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court was satisfied that the suit had not been prosecuted and therefore warranted dismissal for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO. 160 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC. 63 OF 2012(OS)
JAMES GAICHU NKIRANI……..... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
AYUB MUCHEKE MURIGO……. DEFENDANT
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on 23. 11. 2017 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 17 rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, they did not turn up.
2. I am satisfied that the apposite notice was properly issued.
3. I find that the parties have failed to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 17 rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The suit, therefore, merits dismissal.
4. The suit is dismissed.
5. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 23rd day of November, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Parties absent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE