[2024] KEELC 4442 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had been served with the application for dismissal and had notice that the claim had remained unprosecuted for more than a year. The plaintiff failed to respond or provide any justification for the delay. The court noted that it could have issued a notice of dismissal suo moto....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 4442 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Maalim Khamisi Jefwa; Defendant: Mbarak Awadh Omar; Defendant: Hindu Mohamed Amur (The administrator of the estate of Mohamed Bin Amur Bin Kail El Kindy)
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 20 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the applicant.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Suit Property Rights, Estate Administration
- 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
Maalim Khamisi Jefwa
Plaintiff
Mbarak Awadh Omar
Defendant
Hindu Mohamed Amur (The administrator of the estate of Mohamed Bin Amur Bin Kail El Kindy)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inactivity by the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff or 1st defendant has any proprietary or beneficial interest in the suit property.
- 3 Whether the pendency of the suit constitutes an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had been served with the application for dismissal and had notice that the claim had remained unprosecuted for more than a year. The plaintiff failed to respond or provide any justification for the delay. The court noted that it could have issued a notice of dismissal suo moto. Given the lack of action by the plaintiff and absence of any response, the court determined there was no ground to maintain the suit among active cases. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the applicant.
Court Disposition
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the applicant.
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The respondent shall bear the costs of the motion.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Jefwa v Omar & another (Environment & Land Case 20 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 4442 (KLR) (4 June 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 4442 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Environment & Land Case 20 of 2017
FM Njoroge, J
June 4, 2024
Between
Maalim Khamisi Jefwa
Plaintiff
and
Mbarak Awadh Omar
1st Defendant
Hindu Mohamed Amur (The administrator of the estate of Mohamed Bin Amur Bin Kail El Kindy)
2nd Defendant
Ruling
1. The 2nd Defendant filed a notice of motion application dated 18/3/2024 seeking orders that the present suit is dismissed with costs for want of prosecution and also that the costs of the suit be borne by the Plaintiff. It is premised on the grounds listed on the face of the motion as follows: -a.That the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, their agents have been indolent in prosecuting this matter since 2019;b.That the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant have no existent right and or interest whatsoever either proprietary, beneficial or accrued by operation of any law in respect of the suit property;c.That in consideration of clause 2 above, the suit filed herein plainly and obviously discloses no reasonable cause of action, is weak and hopeless beyond redemption and is otherwise an abuse of the court process;d.That the suit property is the property of Mohamed Bin Amur Bin Kaili El Kindy (since deceased) and whose estate has been succeeded by the 2nd Defendant who is the administrator thereof;e.That the 1st Defendant has no sufficient and or any connection at all in law vis a vis the suit property to sue or to be sued for any action whatsoever in personam and rem. The 1st Defendant has never filed a defence since 2019 to date;f.That the suit filed herein is bogus and merely a fraudulent scheme by the Plaintiff, the 1st defendant and their attorneys at law to defraud the lawful beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased and its pendency serves no lawful purpose at all;g.That the best interest of justice will be served by allowing this application.
2. I have noted that the plaintiff was served with the present application and thus has notice of the fact that the claim has lain unprosecuted for more than a year. I have perused through the file and the CTS and found that the plaintiff has not come forward to justify why the suit ought not be dismissed for want of prosecution by filing his affidavit.
3. This is a matter in which the court may have also issued a notice of dismissal for want of prosecution suo moto. In the scenario, as the plaintiff has been notified and has failed to respond in any manner, this court finds no ground for maintaining this suit among the active cases and it is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the applicant. The respondent shall bear the costs of the motion.
Dated, signed and delivered at Malindi via electronic mail on this 4th day of June 2024. MWANGI NJOROGEJUDGE, ELC, MALINDIMLD ELCLC20/17-RLG/DF-19. 03. 24/FH-19. 03. 24/LH-19. 03. 24/DR-04. 06. 24F Page 2 of 2