[2015] KEHC 1175 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 1175 (KLR)

The court found that neither party had shown sufficient cause to prevent dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. The plaintiff's advocates had not been able to trace their client and had not advanced any substantive reason for the delay. The defendants also did not demonstrate eagerness to have the suit heard...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 1175 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Karuthu Magiri alias Mary Magiri (Suing as the administratrix of the estate of M’Magiri M’Anampiu); Defendant: John Kaburu Magiri; Defendant: Settlement Funds Trustee; Defendant: M’Rutere M’Ngurathi; Defendant: Florence Muthoni Abira Charles
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 14 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2, Non Prosecution, Notice to Show Cause
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Order 17 Rule 2 Non Prosecution Notice to Show Cause

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karuthu Magiri alias Mary Magiri (Suing as the administratrix of the estate of M’Magiri M’Anampiu)

Plaintiff

John Kaburu Magiri

Defendant

Settlement Funds Trustee

Defendant

M’Rutere M’Ngurathi

Defendant

Florence Muthoni Abira Charles

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that neither party had shown sufficient cause to prevent dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. The plaintiff's advocates had not been able to trace their client and had not advanced any substantive reason for the delay. The defendants also did not demonstrate eagerness to have the suit heard expeditiously. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • No order as to costs.