[2017] KEELC 692 (KLR)
The court found that the parties failed to appear and show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution, despite proper notice being issued. In accordance with Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit due to inaction by the parties.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 692 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mary Karimi Baithumbi; Defendant: Jacob Baithumbi & 3 Others
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 172 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / 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 1, Land Disputes
- 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
Mary Karimi Baithumbi
Plaintiff
Jacob Baithumbi & 3 Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / 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 parties failed to appear and show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution, despite proper notice being issued. In accordance with Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit due to inaction by the parties.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKKA ELC CASE NO. 172 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC 167 OF 2012
MARY KARIMI BAITHUMBI……..……….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JACOB BAITHUMBI & 3 OTHERS ….DEFENDANTS
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on 18. 12. 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 18th day of December, 2017 in the absence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Parties not in court
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE