[2024] KEELC 4864 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 4864 (KLR)

The court found that although more than one year had elapsed between the last action and the filing of the application to dismiss, there was no evidence on the court record that the plaintiffs were notified of the delivery of the ruling. The plaintiffs' assertion that they became aware of the ruling only upon...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 4864 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Nyevu Luwali Mwawani; Plaintiff: William Mwawani Luwali; Defendant: Said Thabit
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 179 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Suit for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 3, Service of Rulings, Notice Requirements, Court Record Evidence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Order 17 Rule 3 Service of Rulings Notice Requirements Court Record Evidence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nyevu Luwali Mwawani

Plaintiff

William Mwawani Luwali

Plaintiff

Said Thabit

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Suit for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs were properly notified of the delivery of the ruling on the 2nd defendant's preliminary objection.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' failure to set the matter down for hearing was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although more than one year had elapsed between the last action and the filing of the application to dismiss, there was no evidence on the court record that the plaintiffs were notified of the delivery of the ruling. The plaintiffs' assertion that they became aware of the ruling only upon service of the application was plausible, given the absence of notice or correspondence on record. In the interests of justice, and considering the extenuating circumstances presented by the plaintiffs, the court held that the case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The application was therefore dismissed, and the matter was set down for hearing on a future date.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 4/10/2023 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
  • The suit shall be heard on 20/11/2024, notice of which will be by this ruling uploaded on the CTS.