[2017] KEELC 1003 (KLR)
The court found that the parties failed to appear and show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution, despite proper notice having been issued. In accordance with Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit due to inaction by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1003 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Murithi Peter Kamundi & 126 Others; Respondent: County Council of Meru South
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 38 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 42 Rule 35, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Murithi Peter Kamundi & 126 Others
Appellant
County Council of Meru South
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the parties failed to appear and show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution, despite proper notice having been issued. In accordance with Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit due to inaction by the parties, thereby upholding the principle that litigation must be prosecuted diligently and without undue delay.
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
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CIVIL APPEAL CASE NO. 38 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC CIVIL APPEAL NO.09 OF 2013
MURITHI PETER KAMUNDI & 126 OTHERS……………….APPELLANTS
VERSUS
COUNTY COUNCIL OF MERU SOUTH…………………… RESPONDENT
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on 30. 11. 2017 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 42 rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, they did not turn up. The matter had been listed for dismissal before me.
2. I am satisfied that the apposite notice was properly issued.
3. I find that the parties have failed to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 42 rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The suit, therefore, merits dismissal.
4. The suit is dismissed.
5. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 30th day of November, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Parties not in court
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE