[2017] KEHC 7596 (KLR)
The court found that neither party had taken any step in the matter for over one year, and no sufficient cause was shown to justify keeping the suit alive. The plaintiff's explanation regarding the events of 12.10.2015 was found to be misleading, as the court record indicated that neither party attended court on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 7596 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jeovan Kunyanga; Defendant: Gatumba Muchere
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 78 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / 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, Failure to Prosecute, Court Attendance
- 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
Jeovan Kunyanga
Plaintiff
Gatumba Muchere
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / 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.
- 2 Whether the parties have shown sufficient cause for the suit not to be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that neither party had taken any step in the matter for over one year, and no sufficient cause was shown to justify keeping the suit alive. The plaintiff's explanation regarding the events of 12.10.2015 was found to be misleading, as the court record indicated that neither party attended court on that date. The defendant did not attend or provide any explanation. In the absence of any satisfactory reason for the delay, the court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and dismissed the suit for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- This suit is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO 78 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC CASE NO.27 OF 2013
JEOVAN KUNYANGA……………………………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
GATUMBA MUCHERE…………………………………….DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Parties were to come to court on 22. 2.2017 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.
2. On 22. 2.2017, the plaintiff was represented in court by Mr. Kijaru, who held brief for Advocate Gatare Ringera, for the plaintiff.
3. The defendant and / or his advocate were absent.
4 Mr. Kijaru told the court that on 10. 6.2015, the plaintiff invited the defendant to appear at the Meru Registry to fix a hearing date on 18. 6.2016. As the defendant did not appear, the plaintiff, exparte, fixed 12. 10. 2015 as the hearing date. He told the court that on 12. 10. 2015, the matter could not be heard as the court was clogged up. He asked the court to give the plaintiff another chance to prosecute the case expeditiously.
5. I do note that the plaintiff has misled the court by telling it that on 12. 10. 2015, this matter was not given directions or heard because the court was clogged up. There is nothing further from the truth. The court record is pellucid that on 12. 10. 2015, the parties did not turn up in court.
6. Order 17 rule 2 (1) decrees that 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.
7. The defendant has not come to court and, therefore, has not shown to the satisfaction of this court that this suit should NOT be dismissed.
8. The plaintiff has not given any reason why no action had been taken in this matter for a period exceeding one year.
9. In the circumstances, the parties have NOTshown to the satisfaction of this court why this suit should not be dismissed.
10. This suit is dismissed.
11. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka on the 27th day of February, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Kijaru h/b Gatare Ringera for the plaintiff
Defendant or advocate absent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE