[2024] KEELC 35 (KLR)
The court found that the matter had already been marked as settled on 1st March 2023 in the presence of counsel for all parties, and that order had not been vacated, varied, or set aside. As such, there was no pending suit to be prosecuted or dismissed. The application for dismissal for want of prosecution was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 35 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Birya Kalu; Defendant: Johnric Thethe Mbitha; Defendant: Garama Kadenge Bimuhambi; Defendant: Meley Mbitha Muhambi; Defendant: Changa Kadenge Bimuhambi; Defendant: Nicholas Kabando Mwangi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 102 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Consent Orders, Settlement of Suits, 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
Birya Kalu
Plaintiff
Johnric Thethe Mbitha
Defendant
Garama Kadenge Bimuhambi
Defendant
Meley Mbitha Muhambi
Defendant
Changa Kadenge Bimuhambi
Defendant
Nicholas Kabando Mwangi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit against the 1st to 4th Defendants should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the consent order dated 1st March 2023 marked the matter as settled and precludes further prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the matter had already been marked as settled on 1st March 2023 in the presence of counsel for all parties, and that order had not been vacated, varied, or set aside. As such, there was no pending suit to be prosecuted or dismissed. The application for dismissal for want of prosecution was therefore overtaken by events and had no relevance. The court dismissed the application and confirmed that the consent order marking the matter as settled remained in force.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 10th March 2023 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
- The orders issued on 1st March 2023 marking the matter as settled remain in force.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Kalu v Mbitha & 4 others (Environment & Land Case 102 of 2016) [2024] KEELC 35 (KLR) (18 January 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 35 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Environment & Land Case 102 of 2016
FM Njoroge, J
January 18, 2024
Between
Birya Kalu
Plaintiff
and
Johnric Thethe Mbitha
1st Defendant
Garama Kadenge Bimuhambi
2nd Defendant
Meley Mbitha Muhambi
3rd Defendant
Changa Kadenge Bimuhambi
4th Defendant
Nicholas Kabando Mwangi
5th Defendant
Ruling
1. The Defendants’ Notice of Motion dated 10th March 2023 has been brought under Order 17 Rule 2 (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking the following orders:1. That the Plaintiff’s suit against Johnric Thethe Mbitha, Garama Kadenge Bimuhambi, Meley Mbitha Muhambi and Changa Kadenge Bimuhambi sued as dismissed with costs for want of prosecution.2. That costs of the application be in the cause.
2. The application is premised on the grounds set out on its face and the supporting affidavit of Johnric Thethe Mbitha the 1st Defendant who deponed that the claim as against the 5th Defendant was compromised by the terms of the consent order dated 11th April 2018 which marked the suit against the 5th Defendant as settled. He stated that the 2nd, 3rd 4th Defendants and himself were not parties of the said consent. He further stated that despite the fact that in the said consent the Plaintiff got an alternative parcel of land in addition to the payment of the sum of Kshs. 4,000,000/= he has not withdrawn the suit against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants nor has he taken any steps to prosecute the suit in view of the consent. He averred that it would be just and expedient for the Plaintiff’s suit as against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants be dismissed with costs for want of prosecution.
3. The Plaintiff filed a replying affidavit in response stating that the Application is misplaced and wrongly before the court as the suit between the 5th Defendant and himself was settled under the terms of the consent and that the matter between the 1st , 2nd, 3rd, 4th and himself was also marked as settled on 1st March 2022 with no orders as to costs.
Disposition 4. The application was disposed of by way of written submissions which I have taken into account. Upon a cursory perusal of the court file, I do note that on 1st March 2023 in presence of counsel for all parties herein, the matter was marked as settled. This order has not been vacated, varied or set aside. I do not see the relevance of the instant Application as the same has been overtaken by events. Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 10th March 2023 is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. For avoidance of doubt, the orders issued on 1st March 2023 remain in force.
DATED, SIGNED AND ISSUED AT MALINDI ON THIS 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024. MWANGI NJOROGEJUDGE, ELC MALINDI.