[2017] KEELC 3139 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant and his advocate failed to attend court to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution, despite being served. In the absence of any explanation or steps taken by the applicant to prosecute the matter, and upon the respondent's application, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3139 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Loyford Njagi Mwiandi; Respondent: Chairman, Muthambi Division Land Dispute Tribunal
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 06 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Judicial Review, Land Dispute Tribunal Jurisdiction
- 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
Loyford Njagi Mwiandi
Applicant
Chairman, Muthambi Division Land Dispute Tribunal
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / 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 applicant and his advocate failed to attend court to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution, despite being served. In the absence of any explanation or steps taken by the applicant to prosecute the matter, and upon the respondent's application, the court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 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
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA MISC JR CASE NO. 06 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU CIVIL APP. CASE NO. 80 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AGAINST MUTHAMBI DIVISION LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL
AND
IN THE MATTER OF MUTHAMBI DIVISION LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 22 OF 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LAND PARCEL NO. MUTHAMBI/GATUA/463
LOYFORD NJAGI MWIANDI..............................................EX-PARTE APPLICANT
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN, MUTHAMBI DIVISION LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL....RESPONDENT
ANTONY MURITHI M’ITHARI.....................................................INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. Parties were 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. The Applicant and the Interested party, despite service did not come to court.
3. Mr. Kiongo, for the AG for the Respondent, told the court that the applicant and his advocate had not come to court to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. He urged the court to dismiss the suit.
4. I find that the parties have not come to court to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed.
5. In the circumstances, this suit is dismissed.
6. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 15th day of March, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Kiongo for the Respondent
Other parties absent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE