[2015] KEHC 2678 (KLR)
The court found that since no step had been taken in the suit since 3rd November 2009, and no sufficient cause was shown by the plaintiff to explain the delay or justify continuation, the requirements of Order 17 rule 2(1) were met. The court was not satisfied by the plaintiff's explanation and exercised its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 2678 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: M'Njuki Victrio alias Murithi Victorio; Defendant: Francis M'Nanua; Defendant: Josphat Karani Mbui
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 273 of 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Notice to Show Cause, Order 17 Rule 2, Delay in Prosecution
- 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'Njuki Victrio alias Murithi Victorio
Plaintiff
Francis M'Nanua
Defendant
Josphat Karani Mbui
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 rule 2(1).
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since no step had been taken in the suit since 3rd November 2009, and no sufficient cause was shown by the plaintiff to explain the delay or justify continuation, the requirements of Order 17 rule 2(1) were met. The court was not satisfied by the plaintiff's explanation and exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL SUIT NO. 273 OF 1994 (OS)
M'NJUKI VICTRIO alias MURITHI VICTORIO...........................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
FRANCIS M'NANUA......................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
JOSPHAT KARANI MBUI.................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
In this matter notice to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed was properly issued. Cause was to be shown on 3. 4.2013. On that day, the plaintiff's advocate sought to have time to contact the plaintiff who she said was interested in pursuing his case.
I do note that the last time this matter was in court was on 3. 11. 2009. Order 17 rule 2(1) stipulates that in any suit in which no application has been made or step taken by either party for one year, the court may give notice in writing to the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed, and if cause is not shown to its satisfaction, may dismiss the suit.
No cause has been shown to the court's satisfaction that the suit should not be dismissed. In the circumstances, the suit deserves to be dismissed.
The suit is dismissed. It is so ordered.
Delivered in Open Court at Meru this 3rd day of April 2014 in the presence of :
Cc. Daniel/Christine
Miss Koome for the plaintiff
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE