[2017] KEELC 2066 (KLR)
The court found that the notice to show cause was properly issued and that neither party appeared to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. In accordance with Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that the appeal had not been prosecuted and therefore merited dismissal for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2066 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kaibiru Makembo Karere; Respondent: Joram Nthiga
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 88 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 42 Rule 35, 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
Kaibiru Makembo Karere
Appellant
Joram Nthiga
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 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the notice to show cause was properly issued and that neither party appeared to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. In accordance with Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that the appeal had not been prosecuted and therefore merited dismissal for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- It is so ordered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC [CA] CASE NO 88 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC [CA] CASE NO. 110 OF 2013
KAIBIRU MAKEMBO KARERE…..……………………….... ……APPELLANT
VERSUS
JORAM NTHIGA……………………………………………….RESPONDENT
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on 24. 7.2017 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 42 rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, they did not turn up.
2. I am satisfied that the apposite notice was properly issued.
3. I find that the parties have failed to show cause why this Appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of Order 42 Rule 35 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The suit, therefore, merits dismissal.
4. The suit is dismissed.
5. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 24th day of July, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Joram Nthiga – respondent present
Kaibiru Makembo – appellant absent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE