[2017] KEELC 2095 (KLR)
The court found that the notice to show cause was properly issued and that neither party attended court to provide reasons against dismissal. In the absence of any explanation or steps taken by the parties to prosecute the appeal, the court was satisfied that the requirements for dismissal under Order 42 Rule 35(2)...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2095 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kirimi P. Irambu; Respondent: Mati Rwigi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 81 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeals Process, Order 42 Rule 35, 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
Kirimi P. Irambu
Appellant
Mati Rwigi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the notice to show cause was properly issued and that neither party attended court to provide reasons against dismissal. In the absence of any explanation or steps taken by the parties to prosecute the appeal, the court was satisfied that the requirements for dismissal under Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules were met. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC [CA] CASE NO 81 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC [CA] CASE NO. 62 OF 2013
KIRIMI P. IRAMBU..……………………………….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
MATI RWIGI…………………………...……..…..RESPONDENT
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on 26. 7.2017 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 42 rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, they did not turn up.
2. I am satisfied that the apposite notice was properly issued.
3. I find that the parties have failed to show cause why this Appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of Order 42 Rule 35 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The suit, therefore, merits dismissal.
4. The suit is dismissed.
5. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 26th day of July, 2017
in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Parties -absent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE