[2024] KEELC 494 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 494 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit since the ruling on 11th October 2018, and that more than one year had lapsed before the defendant filed the application for dismissal. The plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, as they did not produce...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 494 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kazungu Kombe Kithi; Plaintiff: Kazungu K. Kazungu; Plaintiff: Harun Shauri Kithi; Defendant: Francis Tuva
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 183 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant.
Judges
SM Kibunja
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Award, Land Dispute
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Costs Award Land Dispute

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kazungu Kombe Kithi

Plaintiff

Kazungu K. Kazungu

Plaintiff

Harun Shauri Kithi

Plaintiff

Francis Tuva

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether any steps have been taken to prosecute the suit since 11th October 2018.
  2. 2 Whether a period of over one year had lapsed from the last step to the date of filing the dismissal application.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs have shown reasonable explanation for not prosecuting the case for over one year.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit since the ruling on 11th October 2018, and that more than one year had lapsed before the defendant filed the application for dismissal. The plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, as they did not produce evidence of attempts to clarify the status of the defendant's legal representation or to move the case forward. The court held that the plaintiffs' inaction was inexcusable and that the defendant's application for dismissal for want of prosecution was merited. Consequently, the suit was dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendant.

Orders

  • The defendant’s application dated 2nd September 2022 is allowed with costs.
  • The plaintiffs’ suit commenced through the plaint dated 25th May 2017 is dismissed for want of prosecution with costs.