[2013] KEHC 2260 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 2260 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had not taken any steps to prosecute their application for leave to file judicial review since the matter was transferred in 2009. There was no evidence of follow-up or inquiry by the applicants or their advocate. The only reason for their appearance in court was the issuance of a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 2260 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Muchiri; Applicant: Pauline W. Ndege; Applicant: Rebecca Wangechi Munyi; Applicant: Charity Nyokabi Kuriira; Respondent: The Clerk Kerugoya/Kutus Municipal Council
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 September 2013
Case Number
Judicial Review 55 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed for want of prosecution
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Judicial Review Leave, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Judicial Review Leave Delay in Prosecution

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Muchiri

Applicant

Pauline W. Ndege

Applicant

Rebecca Wangechi Munyi

Applicant

Charity Nyokabi Kuriira

Applicant

The Clerk Kerugoya/Kutus Municipal Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided a satisfactory explanation for the four-year delay in prosecuting the application for leave to file judicial review.
  2. 2 Whether the judicial review application should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had not taken any steps to prosecute their application for leave to file judicial review since the matter was transferred in 2009. There was no evidence of follow-up or inquiry by the applicants or their advocate. The only reason for their appearance in court was the issuance of a Dismissal Notice. The court was satisfied that the applicants had not provided any explanation for the four-year delay. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the judicial review application for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

application dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The judicial review application is dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.