[2019] KEELC 2626 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2626 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiffs had been properly served with the application for dismissal and the relevant mention notices but failed to attend court or take any steps to prosecute the suit since 2013. The last appearance by the Plaintiffs' counsel was on 11/11/2013, and no further action was taken thereafter....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2626 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Katiku Kasina; Plaintiff: Titus Musei; Plaintiff: Nicholas Wambua; Plaintiff: John Kilonzo; Plaintiff: Aron Mutuku (As executive officials of Maili Saba Mwengenya Youth Self Help Group); Defendant: Peter Ngulu Muturi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 521 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Adverse Possession, Injunctive Relief, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Adverse Possession Injunctive Relief Service of Process

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

Katiku Kasina

Plaintiff

Titus Musei

Plaintiff

Nicholas Wambua

Plaintiff

John Kilonzo

Plaintiff

Aron Mutuku (As executive officials of Maili Saba Mwengenya Youth Self Help Group)

Plaintiff

Peter Ngulu Muturi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inaction by the Plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs were properly served with the application and mention notices.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiffs have lost interest in prosecuting the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiffs had been properly served with the application for dismissal and the relevant mention notices but failed to attend court or take any steps to prosecute the suit since 2013. The last appearance by the Plaintiffs' counsel was on 11/11/2013, and no further action was taken thereafter. The court concluded that the Plaintiffs had lost interest in the matter and that it was just and expedient to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, awarding costs to the Defendant.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Costs are awarded to the Defendant.