[2017] KEHC 3907 (KLR)
The court found that the appellants failed to appear or provide any explanation for their absence or for the delay in prosecuting the appeal. The respondent's application for dismissal was unopposed, and the court was satisfied that the requirements for dismissal for want of prosecution under Order 17 and Order 42...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 3907 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joseph Miiru Kirumpu; Appellant: Kithinji Mutithi; Appellant: Murithi Mutithi; Respondent: Veronica Gataru Gerrald
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 75 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeals Process, Order 17 Civil Procedure Rules, Order 42 Rule 35 2, Land Disputes
- 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
Joseph Miiru Kirumpu
Appellant
Kithinji Mutithi
Appellant
Murithi Mutithi
Appellant
Veronica Gataru Gerrald
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the appeal should be dismissed under Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellants failed to appear or provide any explanation for their absence or for the delay in prosecuting the appeal. The respondent's application for dismissal was unopposed, and the court was satisfied that the requirements for dismissal for want of prosecution under Order 17 and Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules had been met. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC [CA] CASE NO 75 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC [CA] CASE NO. 111 OF 2013
JOSEPH MIIRU KIRUMPU ………………...………… 1ST APPELLANT
KITHINJI MUTITHI…….…………………………….…2ND APPELLANT
MURITHI MUTITHI…………………………………….3RD APPELLANT
VERSUS
VERONICA GATARU GERRALD……….……….……RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Parties were to come to court to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 17, Civil Procedure Rules.
2. The appeal had also been listed for dismissal in terms of order 42 Rule 35(2) Civil Procedure Rules.
3. On 25thJuly, 2017, the Respondent asked the court to dismiss the appeal.
4. Two appellants were not in court and no explanation was given for their absence. The one in court Joseph Miiru Kirumpu did not give to court any reason why the Appeal should not be dismissed.
5. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 25th day of July, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Joseph Miiru Kirumpu - 1st Appellant
Veronica GataruGerald – Respondent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE