[2017] KEELC 2006 (KLR)
The court found that the parties failed to attend court and did not show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court was satisfied that proper notice had been issued to the parties. In the absence of any explanation or action from the parties, the court exercised its discretion...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2006 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: M’Baini M’Ndegwa; Respondent: M’Murithi Ndegwa
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 71 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeals Procedure, Order 42 Rule 35, 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
M’Baini M’Ndegwa
Appellant
M’Murithi Ndegwa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the parties failed to attend court and did not show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court was satisfied that proper notice had been issued to the parties. In the absence of any explanation or action from the parties, the court exercised its discretion under Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC [CA] CASE NO 71 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC [CA] CASE NO. 218 OF 2013
M’BAINI M’NDEGWA...........................APPELLANT
VERSUS
M’MURITHI NDEGWA......................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on 25. 7.2017 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 42 rule 35(2) 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 Appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of Order 42 Rule 35 (2) 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 25th day of July, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Parties -absent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE