[2014] KEHC 254 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff, through her advocate, had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in prosecuting the suit. The substitution of the deceased plaintiff and repeated attempts to obtain a hearing date were considered evidence of the plaintiff's intention to proceed. The court exercised its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 254 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Maria Kanario M'Twamwari; Defendant: Igoki Mutethia Farmers; Defendant: Japhet Karuma; Defendant: Zipporah Muchioka
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 5 of 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit not dismissed; directions issued for compliance and hearing.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Management, Substitution of Parties
- 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
Maria Kanario M'Twamwari
Plaintiff
Igoki Mutethia Farmers
Defendant
Japhet Karuma
Defendant
Zipporah Muchioka
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has shown sufficient cause to avoid dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff, through her advocate, had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in prosecuting the suit. The substitution of the deceased plaintiff and repeated attempts to obtain a hearing date were considered evidence of the plaintiff's intention to proceed. The court exercised its discretion not to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, instead directing compliance with procedural requirements and setting timelines for the matter to proceed to hearing.
Court Disposition
Suit not dismissed; directions issued for compliance and hearing.
Orders
- Parties to fully comply with Order II Civil Procedure Rules within 90 days from the date of the ruling.
- Plaintiff to set down the case for hearing within 45 days after compliance with Order II Civil Procedure Rules.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL CASE NO. 5 OF 1990
MARIA KANARIO M'TWAMWARI............................................................PLAINTIFF
VS
IGOKI MUTETHIA FARMERS....................................................... 1ST DEFENDANT
JAPHET KARUMA..........................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
ZIPPORAH MUCHIOKA.................................................................3RD DEFENDANT.
RULING
This matter came up on 2/10/2014 for the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Miss E. G. Mwangi told the court that she came on record for the plaintiff on 25/1/11. Although the suit was filed on 1990, another firm of advocate had been representing the plaintiff.
She told the court that since 2011 she had tried many times to obtain a hearing date without success. She told the court that the original plaintiff, Maria Kanario M'Twamwari died, and was substituted.
The substitution was evidence that the plaintiff wanted the suit to proceed to the stage of hearing and determination. Miss Mwangi said that she was willing to have the suit heard immediately if she could get a hearing date.
I am satisfied that the plaintiff has shown cause to the satisfaction of this court why the suit should not be dismissed.
I give the following directions'
Parties should fully comply with Order II CPR within 90 days from the date of this ruling.
The plaintiff should set down the case for hearing within 45 days after achievement of compliance with Order II CPR.
It is is ordered.
Delivered in Open Court at Meru this 30th day of October, 2014 in the presence of;
Cc. Daniel/Lilian
Mrs E. G. Mwangi for Plaintiff
Muthomi for Defendants
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE