[2016] KEHC 839 (KLR)
The court declined to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution because it found that no proper notice had been issued to the parties as required by law. The absence of all parties on the scheduled date was not sufficient to warrant dismissal in the absence of evidence that notice had been served. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 839 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: The Republic; Respondent: Chairman Meru Central District Land Dispute Tribunal; Interested Party: Tabitha Karea Kungania; Interested Party: Jerica Kirigo Mbaya; Interested Party: Lilian Gauku; Interested Party: Alice Mugito Kaburu; Interested Party: Catherine Ntibuka
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 72 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit not dismissed; proper notice to be issued for parties to show cause on a specified date.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Judicial Review Procedure, Notice Requirements
- 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
The Republic
Applicant
Chairman Meru Central District Land Dispute Tribunal
Respondent
Tabitha Karea Kungania
Interested Party
Jerica Kirigo Mbaya
Interested Party
Lilian Gauku
Interested Party
Alice Mugito Kaburu
Interested Party
Catherine Ntibuka
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution despite absence of parties on the scheduled date.
- 2 Whether proper notice was issued to all parties as required by law before dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution because it found that no proper notice had been issued to the parties as required by law. The absence of all parties on the scheduled date was not sufficient to warrant dismissal in the absence of evidence that notice had been served. The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the need to ensure that all parties are aware of proceedings that may affect their rights. Consequently, the court directed that proper notice be issued to all parties, and a new date be set for them to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Suit not dismissed; proper notice to be issued for parties to show cause on a specified date.
Orders
- The suit is not dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Proper notice shall be issued for the parties to attend court on a specified date to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
JUDICIAL REVIEW MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 72 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION M'KUNGANIA S/O MARETE ALIAS M'KUNGANIA M'MARETE FOR AN ORDER OF PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHAIRMAN MERU CENTRAL DISTRICT LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 28 OF 2009 OVERLAND PARCEL NO NKUENE/KATHERA/40
BETWEEN
THE REPUBLIC ….......................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE CHAIRMAN MERU CENTRAL DISTRICT
LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL.................................RESPONDENT
TABITHA KAREA KUNGANIA
JERICA KIRIGO MBAYA
LILIAN GAUKU
ALICE MUGITO KABURU
CATHERINE NTIBUKA......................}INTERESTED PARTIES
R U L I N G
1. The Parties were to come to Court on 8/11/2016 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Although this direction was given in the presence of the Advocates for the Exparte Applicant and the respondent, the Interested Parties were not represented.
2. On 08/11/2016 all the parties failed to come to Court. In normal circumstances , a Court would be entitled to dismiss the apposite suit.
3. I, however , find that no notice was issued by the Court as required by the law. It may also be that the Interested Parties were not aware that they were required to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed.
4. In the Circumstances, this suit is not dismissed. I direct that proper notice be issued for the parties to come to Court on a specified day when they will show cause why this suit should not be dismissed.
5. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
CA: Daniel /James
Kiogora Arithi for the Exparte Applicant
Kiongo for the Respondent
Ashava h/b Mwirigi for the Interested Parties
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE