[2024] KEHC 10095 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to prosecute the originating summons within a reasonable time, contrary to Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. There was no explanation for the delay. As a result, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for want of prosecution, without making...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 10095 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: JKR; Defendant: JCR
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Originating Summons E001 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Summons / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Application dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Matrimonial Property, Division of Property, Contribution to Acquisition
- 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
JKR
Applicant
JCR
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a declaration of ownership or share in the matrimonial properties listed.
- 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to any share of the properties in question.
- 3 Whether the matter should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to prosecute the originating summons within a reasonable time, contrary to Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. There was no explanation for the delay. As a result, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for want of prosecution, without making any orders as to costs. The substantive issues regarding entitlement to matrimonial property were not determined due to the procedural default.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed for want of prosecution.
Orders
- The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
JKR v JCR (Originating Summons E001 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 10095 (KLR) (8 August 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 10095 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Originating Summons E001 of 2023
RN Nyakundi, J
August 8, 2024
Between
JKR
Applicant
and
JCR
Defendant
Ruling
1. On 9. 3.2023 an originating summons was filed pursuant to Section 45(3) of the Constitution, 2010, Section 17 of the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013 (No. 49 of 2013), Section 13 of the Marriage Act, Sections 1A, 1B 3 & 3A of the CPA CAP 21 And All Other Enabling Provisions of Law. The Applicant moved the court seeking the following orders:a.That a declaration be and is hereby issued to the effect that the Applicant/Plaintiff is entitled to whole shares or such other shares as this court may award of the properties (movable and immovable) acquired by the plaintiff prior to and/or during the subsistence of their marriage but currently in possession for the Respondent/Defendant as the legal owner and censtui que trust respectively namely:i.L.R. No Moi’s Bridge/Sirikwa Block 3 (Ziwa) /231ii.L.R No Moi’s Bridge/Sirikwa Block 2(Ziwa)/33b.That an order do issue directing that the above matrimonial properties be shared according to the contribution made by the parties towards their acquisitionc.That in the alternative to all the above, an order do issue directing that the Respondent/Defendant is not entitled to any share of the properties enumerated in (1) (a) and (b) aboved.That in the alternative to all the above, an order do issue directing that a valuation be carried out on all the above properties and a valuation report filed in court by a mutually acceptable valuer after which the court will apportion what is payable to each based on their contribution towards their acquisition and/or development in the best interest of justice
2. This matter as at 18. 4.2024 waws yet to be prosecuted. This is in contravention to Order 17 Rule 2 of the CPR . There is no explanation for the lengthy delay to prosecute the originating summons. The application is therefore dismissed for want of prosecution with no orders to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDOET THIS 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024. ………………………………………R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE