[2015] KEHC 1216 (KLR)
The court found that the submissions made by the plaintiffs and the defendants did not amount to showing cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution as required under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The plaintiffs' request to have the suit marked as withdrawn, without a formal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 1216 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mohamed Vali Mohamed; Plaintiff: Valji Hirji Senghani; Defendant: Municipal Council of Meru; Defendant: The District Surveyor Imenti North District; Defendant: The District Planning Officer Imenti North District; Defendant: The Hon. The Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 38A of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution; no order as to costs
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Withdrawal of Suit, Order 17 Rule 2, Directions Hearing
- 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
Mohamed Vali Mohamed
Plaintiff
Valji Hirji Senghani
Plaintiff
Municipal Council of Meru
Defendant
The District Surveyor Imenti North District
Defendant
The District Planning Officer Imenti North District
Defendant
The Hon. The Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have shown sufficient cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the suit should be dismissed or marked as withdrawn given the plaintiffs' request.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the submissions made by the plaintiffs and the defendants did not amount to showing cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution as required under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The plaintiffs' request to have the suit marked as withdrawn, without a formal application and without substantive reasons for continuation, was insufficient to prevent dismissal. The court therefore dismissed the suit for want of prosecution and issued no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution; no order as to costs
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL SUIT NO 38A OF 2009
MOHAMED VALI MOHAMED ....................................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
VALJI HIRJI SENGHANI...............................................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MERU............................................................1ST DEFENDANT
THE DISTRICT SURVEYOR IMENTI
NORTH DISTRICT.....................................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
THE DISTRICT PLANNING OFFICER
IMENTI NORTH DISTRICT ......................................................................3RD DEFENDANT
THE HON. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL....................................................4TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
On 04/11/2015 this matter came up for directions regarding a Notice to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Miss Rimita for the Plaintiffs asked the Court to have the suit marked as withdrawn as the Plaintiffs had sold the disputed properties and left the Country for London, England, where they are now living. Gatari Ringera for the 1st defendant told the Court that he was not opposed to the suggested withdrawal of the suit. Miss Kungu for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants told the Court that she was not opposed to the withdrawal of the suit. She, however, said that the plaintiffs should file a formal application for withdrawal.
I do find that the Submissions proffered by the Plaintiff and the defendants do not amount to showing cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. I, therefore, find that no cause has been shown to the satisfaction of this Court as to why this suit should not be dismissed. In the Circumstances, I dismiss the suit. I issue no order as to costs.
It is so ordered.
Delivered in open Court at Meru this 9th day of November, 2015 in the presence of :-
Cc. Daniel/Lilian
Miss Rimita present for Plaintiff
Miss Kungu present for Respondents
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE