[2016] KEHC 5879 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show sufficient cause as to why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Despite being given opportunities and clear directions by both the Deputy Registrar and the Judge, the plaintiffs did not take meaningful steps to progress the matter or provide...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5879 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Muthika M'Itobi; Plaintiff: Peter Mugaa; Defendant: Ntarangwi M'Aranju M'Maraki; Defendant: Isaac M'Thirari M'Nabea; Defendant: Silas Mwirigi A. Kanyamu; Defendant: Peter Kukundi Mungania; Defendant: Njira Thameru; Defendant: Solomon Ayubu; Defendant: Thilange M'Ikenda; Defendant: Staney Miaka; Defendant: David Maore; Defendant: John Ntarangwi P. Mwimbi; Defendant: Joseph Meeme M'Imara
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 159 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
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Management, Order 17 Civil Procedure Rules
- 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
John Muthika M'Itobi
Plaintiff
Peter Mugaa
Plaintiff
Ntarangwi M'Aranju M'Maraki
Defendant
Isaac M'Thirari M'Nabea
Defendant
Silas Mwirigi A. Kanyamu
Defendant
Peter Kukundi Mungania
Defendant
Njira Thameru
Defendant
Solomon Ayubu
Defendant
Thilange M'Ikenda
Defendant
Staney Miaka
Defendant
David Maore
Defendant
John Ntarangwi P. Mwimbi
Defendant
Joseph Meeme M'Imara
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have shown sufficient cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show sufficient cause as to why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Despite being given opportunities and clear directions by both the Deputy Registrar and the Judge, the plaintiffs did not take meaningful steps to progress the matter or provide adequate explanation for the delay. The absence of the defendants and the lack of substantive arguments from the plaintiffs led the court to conclude that the requirements of Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules had not been met. Consequently, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution in accordance with the court's earlier warning and the applicable procedural rules.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- No orders as to costs were specified.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL SUIT NO 159 OF 2008
JOHN MUTHIKA M'ITOBI ….......................................1ST PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
PETER MUGAA.............................................................2ND PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
NTARANGWI M'ARANJU M'MARAKI..... ............1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
ISAAC M'THIRARI M'NABEA ...............................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
SILAS MWIRIGI A. KANYAMU...............................3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
PETER KUKUNDI MUNGANIA................................4TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
NJIRA THAMERU....................................................5TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
SOLOMON AYUBU ….............................................6TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
THILANGE M'IKENDA.............................................7TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
STANEY MIAKA.........................................................8TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
DAVID MAORE ….....................................................9TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
JOHN NTARANGWI P. MWIMBI.............................10th DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
JOSEPH MEEME M'IMARA....................................11TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
R U L IN G
Parties have been directed by the Deputy Registrar to obtain directions regarding hearing them on the notice to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Contrary to the instructions given to Advocate Gichunge by Advocate, B. G. Kariuki, the parties were directed by the Deputy Registrar on 01. 09. 2015 to obtain a date for hearing of the Notice to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
On 06. 07. 2015, the Honourable Githinji, J, Judge directed as follows:-
“Mention before Deputy Registrar on September 1st for a hearing date.
if parties do not attend, the matter, stands dismissed”.
On 1st September, only the Plaintiff was present. Advocate Leekona was present for the Plaintiffs. No one represented the Defendants.
The parties were ordered by the Deputy Registrar to obtain a hearing date from the Registry. On 9. 02. 2016, the parties obtained a date for directions from the Registry. The date given was 30th of March,2016.
On this date the Plaintiffs were represented by Mr. Gichunge holding brief for the plaintiffs. The defendants were not represented.
Today's date for directions was deemed by the Court to be the date when the parties would show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 17, CPR. It is noted that, although Mr. B.G Kariuki, had instructed Mr. Gichunge to hold brief for him, he gave him misleading instructions . Today's date was for directions for the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. I find that the parties have not shown cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. I therefore dismiss the suit. In the words used by the Hon. Justice Githinji on 06. 07. 2015, the suit stands dismissed.
It is so ordered .
DELIVERED IN COURT AT MERU THIS 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
CC: Lilian
Gichunge h/b B.G. Kariuki for the Plaintiffs.
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE