[2015] KEHC 1256 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 1256 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to appear and did not show any cause as to why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. In the absence of any explanation or representation from the plaintiffs or their advocates, and upon the application by the defendants' counsel, the court exercised its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 1256 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jevasia Mukwandiga Kiraithhe; Plaintiff: Henry Munene Kiraithhe; Plaintiff: Felix Kimathi Miriti; Plaintiff: Joclyne Kanyua Kiraithhe; Defendant: Paul Kiraithhe Mpiuki; Defendant: Augustine Kirimi Miriti; Defendant: Marangu Gitonga; Defendant: Lucy Kanyua Mwirichia; Defendant: Dennis Mwenda Kang'ori
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 17 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution. Costs awarded to the defendants.
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Civil Procedure Rules, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Order 17 Civil Procedure Rules Costs Award

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jevasia Mukwandiga Kiraithhe

Plaintiff

Henry Munene Kiraithhe

Plaintiff

Felix Kimathi Miriti

Plaintiff

Joclyne Kanyua Kiraithhe

Plaintiff

Paul Kiraithhe Mpiuki

Defendant

Augustine Kirimi Miriti

Defendant

Marangu Gitonga

Defendant

Lucy Kanyua Mwirichia

Defendant

Dennis Mwenda Kang'ori

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to appear and did not show any cause as to why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. In the absence of any explanation or representation from the plaintiffs or their advocates, and upon the application by the defendants' counsel, the court exercised its discretion under Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit. The court further awarded costs to the defendants as the successful parties in the application for dismissal.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed for want of prosecution. Costs awarded to the defendants.

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Costs are awarded to the defendants.