[2017] KEELC 3549 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in prosecuting the suit, attributing it to the actions of his advocate rather than his own fault. The court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and determined that the suit should not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3549 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mugere Kamotho; Defendant: James Muchiri Ndegwa; Defendant: David Muthengi; Defendant: John Nyaga; Defendant: M’Imwitha M’Rintira; Defendant: Jackson Makunyi Kururu; Defendant: M’Gweta Murua; Defendant: Njeru Ngoroi; Defendant: Alexander Munene Mati; Defendant: Patrick Mutugi Mati; Defendant: John Gitonga Mati; Defendant: Catherine Kagendo Muturia; Defendant: M’Nandi Maikithe
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 09 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit not dismissed; directions issued for compliance and further hearing
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2, Case Management, Compliance With Pretrial Orders
- 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
Mugere Kamotho
Plaintiff
James Muchiri Ndegwa
Defendant
David Muthengi
Defendant
John Nyaga
Defendant
M’Imwitha M’Rintira
Defendant
Jackson Makunyi Kururu
Defendant
M’Gweta Murua
Defendant
Njeru Ngoroi
Defendant
Alexander Munene Mati
Defendant
Patrick Mutugi Mati
Defendant
John Gitonga Mati
Defendant
Catherine Kagendo Muturia
Defendant
M’Nandi Maikithe
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to prosecute the suit despite the delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in prosecuting the suit, attributing it to the actions of his advocate rather than his own fault. The court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and determined that the suit should not be dismissed. The court further directed both parties to comply with pretrial procedures within specified timelines to ensure expeditious disposal of the matter.
Court Disposition
suit not dismissed; directions issued for compliance and further hearing
Orders
- The suit is not dismissed.
- The plaintiff is ordered to fully comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within 14 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO 09 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC CASE NO. 14 OF 2015
MUGERE KAMOTHO…………....................………………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JAMES MUCHIRI NDEGWA…………….……………………1ST DEFENDANT
DAVID MUTHENGI……………………..….………………….2ND DEFENDANT
JOHN NYAGA …………………………..…..………………….3TH DEFENDANT
M’IMWITHA M’RINTIRA……………….…...…………………4TH DEFENDANT
JACKSON MAKUNYI KURURU…………....………………….5TH DEFENDANT
M’GWETA MURUA………………………...………………….6TH DEFENDANT
NJERU NGOROI……………………….……………………....7TH DEFENDANT
ALEXANDER MUNENE MATI……………...…………………8TH DEFENDANT
PATRICK MUTUGI MATI………………...….…………………9TH DEFENDANT
JOHN GITONGA MATI…………………...….……………….10TH DEFENDANT
CATHERINE KAGENDO MUTURIA……….....………………11TH DEFENDANT
M’NANDI MAIKITHE………………………..……………….12TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Parties came to court on 28. 2.2014 to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed in terms of Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. The plaintiff was in court but his advocate was absent. The plaintiff told the court that his advocate, Mr. Mutwiri Arimi, had told him to remain at home until he invited him to come to court. He told the court that as the non-prosecution of this suit was the advocate’s fault, he should be given a chance to prosecute his claim.
3. Mr. I.C. Mugo, the defendants’ advocate said that he would leave dismissal or non-dismissal of this suit to the discretion of the court.
4. I find that the parties have shown to the satisfaction of this court that this suit should not be dismissed.
5. This suit is not dismissed.
6. The plaintiff is ordered to fully comply with order 11, CPR, within 14 days of today and the defendants should do so within 13 days of the receipt of the plaintiff’s compliance documents.
7. Parties will come to court for directions on 27. 3.2017.
8. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 28th day of February, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
I.C. Mugo for the defendants
Mugere Kamotho – plaintiff
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE