[2019] KEELC 1061 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 1061 (KLR)

The court found that the period between the last court action (20th September 2017) and the filing of the application for dismissal (11th July 2018) was approximately 9 months and 20 days, which is less than the one-year threshold required under Order 17 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Therefore, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 1061 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Khamis Kombo Gogo (Suing as the legal Administrator of the Estate of the Late Muhambi Gogo Mwangari); Defendant: Khamis Anthony Tsange
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 7 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
CK Yano
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Inordinate Delay, Judicial Discretion, Expeditious Trial
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Inordinate Delay Judicial Discretion Expeditious Trial

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khamis Kombo Gogo (Suing as the legal Administrator of the Estate of the Late Muhambi Gogo Mwangari)

Applicant

Khamis Anthony Tsange

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the application for dismissal was premature as less than one year had lapsed since the last court action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the period between the last court action (20th September 2017) and the filing of the application for dismissal (11th July 2018) was approximately 9 months and 20 days, which is less than the one-year threshold required under Order 17 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Therefore, the application for dismissal was premature. The court emphasized that the power to dismiss a suit for want of prosecution is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, taking into account whether there has been inordinate delay, whether the delay is intentional, whether it has caused prejudice, and whether a reasonable explanation has been offered. In this case, the plaintiff had...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 11th July 2018 is dismissed with costs.