[2017] KEHC 7743 (KLR)
The court found that the notice to show cause was properly issued to the parties. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendants appeared in court to provide reasons or arguments against dismissal. In accordance with Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that the parties failed to show...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 7743 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lawrence Miriti Njiru (suing as the administrator of the estate of Particio M’Thika Riara aka Practricio Njiru); Defendant: Benson Kaaria M’Riara; Defendant: Nyaga Stephen Muindi; Defendant: Nolasco Ndiga Zakayo; Defendant: Kaburu Bengi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 73 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Environment Case / Ruling on 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, Failure to Prosecute, Land Dispute
- 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
Lawrence Miriti Njiru (suing as the administrator of the estate of Particio M’Thika Riara aka Practricio Njiru)
Plaintiff
Benson Kaaria M’Riara
Defendant
Nyaga Stephen Muindi
Defendant
Nolasco Ndiga Zakayo
Defendant
Kaburu Bengi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Ruling on 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.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the notice to show cause was properly issued to the parties. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendants appeared in court to provide reasons or arguments against dismissal. In accordance with Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that the parties failed to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The absence of any action or attendance by the parties justified the dismissal of 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
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO 73 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC CASE NO. 09 OF 2013
LAWRENCE MIRITI NJIRU (SUING AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF PARTICIO M’THIKA RIARA aka
PRACTRICIO NJIRU………………………..........…………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
BENSON KAARIA M’RIARA…………………….....……..….1ST DEFENDANT
NYAGA STEPHEN MUINDI……………….………………....2ND DEFENDANT
NOLASCO NDIGA ZAKAYO…………….……………….…..3RD DEFENDANT
KABURU BENGI………………………………………….…..4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on 22. 2.2017 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 17 rule 2(1) 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 suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 17 rule 2 (1) 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 22nd day of February, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Parties absent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE