[2016] KEHC 818 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated sufficient cause for not having prosecuted the suit expeditiously, as they had made efforts to obtain a hearing date and had previously sought directions from the Deputy Registrar. In the interest of justice, the court determined that the suit should not be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 818 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Monica Karegi Mugambi; Plaintiff: Andrew (Andrea) Murunga Mugambi; Defendant: Alois Mugambi M' Mwirichia; Defendant: Diocese of Meru Trustees (Registered)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 103 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause Why Suit Should Not Be Dismissed
- Outcome
- Suit not dismissed; parties directed to comply with Order 11 CPR within specified timelines.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Management, Order 11 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
Monica Karegi Mugambi
Plaintiff
Andrew (Andrea) Murunga Mugambi
Plaintiff
Alois Mugambi M' Mwirichia
Defendant
Diocese of Meru Trustees (Registered)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause Why Suit Should Not Be Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have shown sufficient cause to prevent dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the suit should be dismissed for failure to set the matter down for hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated sufficient cause for not having prosecuted the suit expeditiously, as they had made efforts to obtain a hearing date and had previously sought directions from the Deputy Registrar. In the interest of justice, the court determined that the suit should not be dismissed at this stage. The court further directed both parties to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within specified timelines to facilitate the progression of the matter towards hearing.
Court Disposition
Suit not dismissed; parties directed to comply with Order 11 CPR within specified timelines.
Orders
- The suit is not dismissed.
- The plaintiffs are directed to fully comply with Order 11, Civil Procedure Rules, within 45 days of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL SUIT NO. 103 OF 2012
MONICA KAREGI MUGAMBI......................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
ANDREW (ANDREA MURUNGA MUGAMBI..........................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ALOIS MUGAMBI M' MWIRICHIA..........................................1ST DEFENDANT
DIOCESE OF MERU TRUSTEES (REGISTERED).........2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. The parties were required to come to Court on 11/11/2015 to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff's Counsel told the Court that the Plaintiffs were eager to prosecute their case and said that that is why on 01/07/2013 they had asked the Deputy Registrar to raise the matter before a Judge for directions. They were to come for directions on 11/11/2013 but on that day, their Advocate said that they had strived to get a date for hearing but the same was not forthcoming. Their Advocate urged the Court not to dismiss the suit.
3. The Defendants' Advocate urged the Court to dismiss the suit.
4. In the interest of Justice , I find that cause has been shown to the satisfaction of the Court why the suit should NOT be dismissed.
5. In the Circumstances, the suit is not dismissed.
6. The Plaintiffs are directed to fully comply with Order 11, CPR, within 45 days of this ruling and the Defendants are to fully comply with the said order within 45 days after they are served by the Plaintiffs with the apposite compliance documents.
7. Costs shall be in the cause.
8. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF:
CC: James/Daniel
Kimaita h/b Kioga for the Plaintiff
Muthomi h/b Rimita for the Defendant
P. M NJOROGE
JUDGE