[2013] KEHC 4700 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to prosecute the application, despite having participated in fixing the hearing date. There was no support for the application from any party. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for want of prosecution and awarded costs to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 4700 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lucyline Churi; Respondent: Moses Kithinji Mugambi; Respondent: Josphine Ndumba; Respondent: Edith G. Mugambi; Respondent: Philus M. Gituma Kiambi; Respondent: Mary N. Kiambi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 51 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Dismissal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Non Prosecution, Costs Award, Notice of Motion
- 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
Lucyline Churi
Applicant
Moses Kithinji Mugambi
Respondent
Josphine Ndumba
Respondent
Edith G. Mugambi
Respondent
Philus M. Gituma Kiambi
Respondent
Mary N. Kiambi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether costs should be awarded to the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to prosecute the application, despite having participated in fixing the hearing date. There was no support for the application from any party. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for want of prosecution and awarded costs to the respondents, in line with established principles under the Civil Procedure Rules and Act.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application brought by Notice of Motion on 18th June, 2012 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Meru
Miscellaneous 51 of 2012 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif]
LUCYLINE CHURI.............................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
MOSES KITHINJI MUGAMBI............................................................1ST RESPONDENT
JOSPHINE NDUMBA..........................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
EDITH G. MUGAMBI...........................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
PHILUS M. GITUMA KIAMBI.............................................................4TH RESPONDENT
MARY N. KIAMBI................................................................................5TH RESPONDENT
RULING
I agree with counsel for the 3rd to 5th Respondents that the applicant has failed to prosecute the application even after having taken part in the fixing of the hearing date.
The application is not supported by any of the parties. In the circumstances, the application bought to this Court by way of Notice of motion on 18th June, 2012 is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
WRITTEN AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT ON 11TH MARCH, 2013.
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE
[if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; text-autospace:ideograph-other; font-size:12. 0pt;"Liberation Serif","serif";} </style> <![endif]