[2019] KEELC 4798 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 4798 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for more than two years, despite having filed the suit and an application for injunction. The delay was attributable to the plaintiff, and no cause was shown to justify the inaction. The court exercised its discretion under Order...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 4798 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Josiah Mucheru B. Kihereko; Defendant: Ellen Wambui; Defendant: Gladys Wairimu; Interested Party: Mary Wambui Njoroge
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 571 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the interested party/applicant
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Court Discretion, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Court Discretion Land Disputes

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josiah Mucheru B. Kihereko

Plaintiff

Ellen Wambui

Defendant

Gladys Wairimu

Defendant

Mary Wambui Njoroge

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the interested party/applicant is entitled to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any steps to prosecute the suit for more than two years, despite having filed the suit and an application for injunction. The delay was attributable to the plaintiff, and no cause was shown to justify the inaction. The court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, finding that the plaintiff had lost interest in the matter. The application by the interested party was therefore merited and allowed, with costs awarded to the applicant.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the interested party/applicant

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Costs are awarded to the interested party/applicant.