[2017] KEELC 2255 (KLR)
The court found that neither the 1st plaintiff nor the other plaintiffs demonstrated any interest in prosecuting the suit. The 1st plaintiff indicated he had filed a different suit against the defendant and did not show cause as to why the present suit should not be dismissed. The absence of the other plaintiffs...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2255 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Patrick M. Nyaga; Plaintiff: Mutua Nyaga; Plaintiff: Kimathi Nyaga; Plaintiff: Kirugu Nyaga; Plaintiff: Gladys Nyaga; Plaintiff: Rose Nyaga; Defendant: M’Riri M’Irambu
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 96 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / 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 17 Rule 2, Failure to Prosecute, Land Dispute
- 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
Patrick M. Nyaga
Plaintiff
Mutua Nyaga
Plaintiff
Kimathi Nyaga
Plaintiff
Kirugu Nyaga
Plaintiff
Gladys Nyaga
Plaintiff
Rose Nyaga
Plaintiff
M’Riri M’Irambu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have shown sufficient cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the absence of most plaintiffs and lack of interest in prosecuting the case warrants dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that neither the 1st plaintiff nor the other plaintiffs demonstrated any interest in prosecuting the suit. The 1st plaintiff indicated he had filed a different suit against the defendant and did not show cause as to why the present suit should not be dismissed. The absence of the other plaintiffs further confirmed the lack of interest in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the court held that no sufficient cause had been shown to prevent dismissal, and the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO 96 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC CASE NO. 122 OF 2006
PATRICK M. NYAGA……..……………………………………..1ST PLAINTIFF
MUTUA NYAGA…………………………………………..……2ND PLAINTIFF
KIMATHI NYAGA……….………………………………………3RD PLAINTIFF
KIRUGU NYAGA………….…………………………………….4TH PLAINTIFF
GLADYS NYAGA………………………………………………5TH PLAINTIFF
ROSE NYAGA…………………………………………………..6TH PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M’RIRI M’IRAMBU……....……………………………………..….DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Parties were to come to court on 10. 7.2017 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of Order 17 Rule 2 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Only the 1st Plaintiff, Patrick M. Nyaga, came to court. The other parties were absent.
3. The 1st plaintiff told the court that he had filed another case against the defendant at Meru. He proffered that it was suit No. 122 of 2005. He did not indicate that he was interested in prosecuting this case. By their absence, the other plaintiffs are clearly not keen in prosecuting this case.
4. I find that no cause has been shown to the satisfaction of this court that this suit should not be dismissed.
5. In the circumstances, this suit is dismissed.
6. No order as to costs is issued.
7. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 10th day of July, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Patrick M. Nyaga – 1st plaintiff
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE