[2017] KEELC 2085 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause or justification for the delay in prosecuting the appeal. The medical letter produced did not demonstrate incapacity to proceed, as it confirmed the appellant's awareness and normal perception. The court was not satisfied that there was any valid...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2085 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: M’Muchiri Mukindia; Respondent: Josephine Mary Gaji
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 77 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 Process, Tribunal Decisions, Order 17 Civil Procedure Rules, Order 42 Civil Procedure Rules
- 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’Muchiri Mukindia
Appellant
Josephine Mary Gaji
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the requirements of Order 17 and Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules have been satisfied for dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause or justification for the delay in prosecuting the appeal. The medical letter produced did not demonstrate incapacity to proceed, as it confirmed the appellant's awareness and normal perception. The court was not satisfied that there was any valid reason to prevent dismissal, and therefore exercised its discretion under Orders 17 and 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC [CA] CASE NO 77 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC [CA] CASE NO. 54 OF 2013
M’MUCHIRI MUKINDIA …..…………………………...… APPELLANT
VERSUS
JOSEPHINE MARY GAJI…….………………................ RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Parties came to court to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of Order 17, Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Parties had also been given notice that this suit would be listed for dismissal before me on 25. 7.2017 in terms of Order 42, Civil Procedure Rules.
3. On 25. 7.2017, a lady called Mercy Muthoni Muchiri produced a doctor’s letter saying that the appellant had a mental illness. The letter was signed by Dr Thuo J. N., a consultant psychiatrist. The letter though it said the appellant had senile dementia said that he was fully aware of his surrounding environment and that his thought content and perception were normal.
4. The respondent, Mary Josephine Gaji told the court that she had won this suit both at the District and Provincial Tribunals. She told the court that the appellant had, at the provincial tribunal, said that the suit land should belong to her and Eustus Njeru. She claimed that it was his sons who had incited him to file this appeal.
5. The Respondent urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lack of prosecution.
6. I find that the appellant has not shown to the satisfaction of the court why the appeal should not be dismissed both in terms of orders 17 and 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
7. In the circumstances, this appeal is dismissed.
8. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 25th day of July, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Mary Josephine Gaji – Respondnet
Mary Muthoni Muchiri – Appellant’s daughter
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE