[2017] KEELC 3126 (KLR)
The court found that proper notice to show cause was issued to the parties as required by Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Neither the applicant nor the respondents attended court or provided any explanation or cause as to why the suit should not be dismissed. In the absence of any steps taken by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3126 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jane Wanjira Njoka (Administrator of the Estate of Gitonga Mberia – Deceased); Respondent: King Prime International Ltd; Respondent: Fredrick Roy Mugo; Respondent: Charity K. Mugo; Respondent: Suresh B. M. Patel t/a Sparko General; Respondent: Julius Nderitu Kuria
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 05 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / 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, Case Management
- 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
Jane Wanjira Njoka (Administrator of the Estate of Gitonga Mberia – Deceased)
Applicant
King Prime International Ltd
Respondent
Fredrick Roy Mugo
Respondent
Charity K. Mugo
Respondent
Suresh B. M. Patel t/a Sparko General
Respondent
Julius Nderitu Kuria
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / 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 proper notice to show cause was issued to the parties as required by Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Neither the applicant nor the respondents attended court or provided any explanation or cause as to why the suit should not be dismissed. In the absence of any steps taken by the parties and no cause being shown, the court was satisfied that the requirements for dismissal for want of prosecution were met. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- It is so ordered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA MISC JR CASE NO. 05 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION CASE NO.129 OF 2012
JANE WANJIRA NJOKA (ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GITONGA MBERIA –DECEASED)…PETITIONER
VERSUS
KING PRIME INTERNATIONAL LTD…………….......1ST RESPONDENT
FREDRICK ROY MUGO…………………………..….2ND RESPONDENT
CHARITY K. MUGO………………………………..….3RD RESPONDENT
SURESH B. M. PATEL T/A SPARKO GENERAL……4TH RESPONDENT
JULIUS NDERITU KURIA……………………………...5TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on 15. 3.2017 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 15th day of March, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Parties - absent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE