[2023] KEELC 15796 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 15796 (KLR)

The court found that since the last step in the matter was taken on February 24, 2021, and no action had been taken by either party for over a year, and both parties failed to attend court or provide any explanation for the delay, the requirements for dismissal under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 15796 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Scholastica Odiero (Suing on behalf of self and on behalf of Scholastica Odiero, Andrew Mbuor, James Bosire, Lillian Atieno Ouko, Joseph Obiero, Patrice Mbuor and Vincent Mokaya); Respondent: Beatrice Awuor Ogola
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 69 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
GMA Ongondo
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Civil Procedure Rules, Suit Land Title
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Adverse Possession Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Civil Procedure Rules Suit Land Title

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scholastica Odiero (Suing on behalf of self and on behalf of Scholastica Odiero, Andrew Mbuor, James Bosire, Lillian Atieno Ouko, Joseph Obiero, Patrice Mbuor and Vincent Mokaya)

Applicant

Beatrice Awuor Ogola

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided any reason for non-attendance or delay in prosecuting the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that since the last step in the matter was taken on February 24, 2021, and no action had been taken by either party for over a year, and both parties failed to attend court or provide any explanation for the delay, the requirements for dismissal under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, were satisfied. The suit was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
  • No order as to costs.