[2017] KEELC 3133 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3133 (KLR)

The court found that although the plaintiff had not prosecuted the pending application or taken sufficient steps to advance the suit, she had demonstrated some interest in prosecuting the matter, as evidenced by correspondence with the 1st defendant. The court was not fully convinced by the plaintiff's diligence but...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3133 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Purity Cherotich Tesot; Defendant: Rusi Chepng’etich Langat; Defendant: Paul Kipsang Koech
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 248 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Notice to Show Cause / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Suit not dismissed; plaintiff given benefit of doubt and directed to take steps to prosecute.
Judges
DO Ohungo
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2, Delay in Prosecution, Injunctive Relief, Case Management
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Order 17 Rule 2 Delay in Prosecution Injunctive Relief Case Management

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

Purity Cherotich Tesot

Plaintiff

Rusi Chepng’etich Langat

Defendant

Paul Kipsang Koech

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice to Show Cause / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient interest and steps to prosecute the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the plaintiff had not prosecuted the pending application or taken sufficient steps to advance the suit, she had demonstrated some interest in prosecuting the matter, as evidenced by correspondence with the 1st defendant. The court was not fully convinced by the plaintiff's diligence but decided to give her the benefit of doubt. The court declined to dismiss the suit, instead ordering the plaintiff to take concrete steps within sixty days to prosecute the pending application and fix the suit for hearing. The court emphasized that the suit would not be ready for hearing until the pending application was addressed, and that the plaintiff was required to do more...

Court Disposition

Suit not dismissed; plaintiff given benefit of doubt and directed to take steps to prosecute.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to take concrete steps within sixty (60) days to deal with the pending application and fix the suit for hearing.
  • Suit not dismissed under Order 17 rule 2.