[2020] KEELC 1547 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 1547 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff had failed to take any action in the suit since 31/7/2015, a period of over 46 months, except for the filing of notices of appointment of advocates. The court held that this constituted inordinate and inexcusable delay, and that the Plaintiff had lost interest in prosecuting the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 1547 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mbugua Kariuki; Defendant: Agnes Wakariti Magondu; Defendant: Commissioner of Lands; Defendant: Chief Land Registrar; Defendant: Kamiti Farmers Company Limited; Defendant: Simon Njuguna Njoroge; Defendant: Margaret Njoki Njuguna; Defendant: Ibrahim Kamau Njenga; Defendant: Patricia Wanjiku Kihura; Defendant: Wanjiku Kiarie; Defendant: Peter Munene Ndegwa
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 998 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Land Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Injunctions, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Injunctions Delay in Prosecution

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mbugua Kariuki

Plaintiff

Agnes Wakariti Magondu

Defendant

Commissioner of Lands

Defendant

Chief Land Registrar

Defendant

Kamiti Farmers Company Limited

Defendant

Simon Njuguna Njoroge

Defendant

Margaret Njoki Njuguna

Defendant

Ibrahim Kamau Njenga

Defendant

Patricia Wanjiku Kihura

Defendant

Wanjiku Kiarie

Defendant

Peter Munene Ndegwa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Suit / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the Plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the orders of injunction previously granted should be vacated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff had failed to take any action in the suit since 31/7/2015, a period of over 46 months, except for the filing of notices of appointment of advocates. The court held that this constituted inordinate and inexcusable delay, and that the Plaintiff had lost interest in prosecuting the matter. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and awarded costs to the 1st Defendant. The court also noted that the continued existence of the injunction order was not justified in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • The 1st Defendant is awarded the costs of the suit and of the application.