[2017] KEHC 7898 (KLR)
The court found that no sufficient cause was shown to prevent dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution as required by Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Although the plaintiffs' counsel indicated that the matter had been settled out of court, the absence of the defendant precluded the court from...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 7898 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kerea Mutinda M’Muthamia; Plaintiff: Stephen Ruuri M’Muthamia; Defendant: Joseph Kanyuru M’Muthamia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 43 of 2014
- 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, Settlement of 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
Kerea Mutinda M’Muthamia
Plaintiff
Stephen Ruuri M’Muthamia
Plaintiff
Joseph Kanyuru M’Muthamia
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the court should mark the suit as settled in the absence of the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that no sufficient cause was shown to prevent dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution as required by Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Although the plaintiffs' counsel indicated that the matter had been settled out of court, the absence of the defendant precluded the court from marking the suit as settled. The court therefore exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CHUKA
ELC CASE NO. 43 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU HCCC NO. 99 OF 2014
KEREA MUTINDA M’MUTHAMIA……………1ST APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
STEPHEN RUURI M’MUTHAMIA……………..2ND APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JOSEPH KANYURU M’MUTHAMIA…………RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Notice was duly issued for the parties to come to court to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 17 rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Cause was to be shown on 15. 2.2017. Whereas Mr David Gichuki, advocate, held brief for Miss Kiome, the plaintiff’s advocate, the defendant was not in court even though there was evidence that he had been properly served with the apposite hearing date.
3. Mr Ndegwa, for Miss Kiome, for the plaintiff, told the court that the parties had settled the matter at home and wished the suit to be marked as settled with no order as to costs.
4. As the defendant is not in court, I decline to mark the suit as settled.
5. I find that no cause has been shown to the satisfaction of the court that this suit should not be dismissed.
6. This suit is dismissed.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 15th day of February, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
David Gichuki holding brief for M/S Kiome for the plaintiff
Defendant – absent
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE