[2017] KEELC 619 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause for the delay in prosecuting the suit. Despite being given additional time for his advocate to appear, no advocate attended court on behalf of the plaintiff. The court was not satisfied with the explanation provided and, in accordance with the Civil...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 619 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mugendi Edwin; Defendant: Timothy Micheni Kanampiu
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 171 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Management, 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
Mugendi Edwin
Plaintiff
Timothy Micheni Kanampiu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether sufficient cause was shown to prevent dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause for the delay in prosecuting the suit. Despite being given additional time for his advocate to appear, no advocate attended court on behalf of the plaintiff. The court was not satisfied with the explanation provided and, in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules, dismissed the suit for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO. 171 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC CASE NO. 200 OF 2012
MUGENDI EDWIN...............................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
TIMOTHY MICHENI KANAMPIU...................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This matter came up on 18. 12. 2017 for parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. The plaintiff told the court that his advocate had informed him that he was on his way to the court. He was given time to allow his advocate to come to court.
3. Over one hour later, the plaintiff’s advocate was not in court.
4. I find that no cause has been shown to the satisfaction of the court that the suit should NOTbe dismissed.
5. In the circumstances, the suit is dismissed.
6. Delivered in open court at Chuka this 18th day of December, 2017
in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Mugendi Edwin – plaintiff
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE