[2024] KEELC 4443 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 4443 (KLR)

The court found that the 2nd defendant failed to comply with its order to serve the application and file an affidavit of service within the stipulated time. As a result, in accordance with the court's prior directive, the notice of motion dated 26/2/2024 stood dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-compliance...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 4443 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kenzo Hugues Ndaya Lusambo alias Iddi Ndaya Lusambo (Suing on own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of Kamila Mpemba Alias Jeanette Von Rohr); Defendant: Mpemba Omar Mpemba; Defendant: Nassir Omar Mohammed
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case E25 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Strike Out Suit
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of compliance with court orders.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Striking Out Suit, Non Compliance With Court Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Striking Out Suit Non Compliance With Court Orders

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenzo Hugues Ndaya Lusambo alias Iddi Ndaya Lusambo (Suing on own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of Kamila Mpemba Alias Jeanette Von Rohr)

Plaintiff

Mpemba Omar Mpemba

Defendant

Nassir Omar Mohammed

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Strike Out Suit

  1. 1 Whether the notice of motion to strike out the suit should be allowed in light of non-compliance with court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 2nd defendant failed to comply with its order to serve the application and file an affidavit of service within the stipulated time. As a result, in accordance with the court's prior directive, the notice of motion dated 26/2/2024 stood dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-compliance with court orders. The court emphasized the necessity for parties to adhere strictly to procedural requirements and timelines set by the court, failing which their applications are liable to be dismissed without further consideration of the merits.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of compliance with court orders.

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 26/2/2024 is dismissed for want of compliance with court orders.