[2016] KEHC 2809 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 2809 (KLR)

The court found that all parties were in agreement that the suit should be heard on its merits and that attempts at settlement had delayed prosecution. The parties demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, and the court was satisfied that the interests of justice required the matter to proceed to hearing rather...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 2809 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Nkubitu M'Rimberia; Respondent: Chairman Meru Central District Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: Benson Kithure Nkubitu; Interested Party: Nkubitu Ibrahim; Interested Party: Rael Jepkoech Nkubitu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review 5 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal Under Order 17 Rule 2(2) Civil Procedure Code
Outcome
Suit not dismissed; to proceed to hearing on merits.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Notice to Show Cause, Judicial Review Procedure, Land Dispute Resolution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Notice to Show Cause Judicial Review Procedure Land Dispute Resolution

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

Nkubitu M'Rimberia

Applicant

Chairman Meru Central District Land Disputes Tribunal

Respondent

Benson Kithure Nkubitu

Interested Party

Nkubitu Ibrahim

Interested Party

Rael Jepkoech Nkubitu

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal Under Order 17 Rule 2(2) Civil Procedure Code

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code.
  2. 2 Whether the parties have shown sufficient cause to prevent dismissal of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all parties were in agreement that the suit should be heard on its merits and that attempts at settlement had delayed prosecution. The parties demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, and the court was satisfied that the interests of justice required the matter to proceed to hearing rather than be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code to decline dismissal, emphasizing the parties' readiness to prosecute the suit and the failed settlement efforts as adequate justification.

Court Disposition

Suit not dismissed; to proceed to hearing on merits.

Orders

  • The suit shall not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.