[2017] KEELC 2099 (KLR)
The court found that the notice to show cause was properly issued and that neither party appeared to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. In accordance with Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that the failure of the parties to prosecute the appeal justified its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2099 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Gikamati Itanguru; Respondent: Andrew Kirimi Peter
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 87 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Procedure, Order 42 Rule 35
- 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
Peter Gikamati Itanguru
Appellant
Andrew Kirimi Peter
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal 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 notice to show cause was properly issued and that neither party appeared to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. In accordance with Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that the failure of the parties to prosecute the appeal justified its dismissal for want of prosecution. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit, as the parties had not demonstrated any reason to keep the appeal alive.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC [CA] CASE NO 87 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC [CA] CASE NO. 27 OF 2013
PETER GIKAMATI ITANGURU..............................…APPELLANT
VERSUS
ANDREW KIRIMI PETER……………….………...RESPONDENT
RULING
1. When the parties were to come to court on 24. 7.2017 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.
2. I am satisfied that the apposite notice was properly issued.
3. I find that the parties have failed to show cause why this Appeal 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 24th day of July, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Parties -absent
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE