[2016] KEHC 652 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had satisfactorily explained the delay in prosecuting the suit, attributing it to the respondent and interested party's failure to file their responses and documents. Since the delay was not the applicant's fault, the court exercised its discretion not to dismiss the suit for want...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 652 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rufus M'Naivasha M'Miriti; Respondent: Chairman Muthambi Divisional Land Disputes Tribunal; Interested Party: Julius Miriti Sebastiano
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 85 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit not dismissed; respondent and interested party granted 60 days to file responses.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Land Disputes Tribunal Proceedings
- 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
Rufus M'Naivasha M'Miriti
Applicant
Chairman Muthambi Divisional Land Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Julius Miriti Sebastiano
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to delay.
- 2 Whether the delay was occasioned by the applicant or by the respondent and interested party.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had satisfactorily explained the delay in prosecuting the suit, attributing it to the respondent and interested party's failure to file their responses and documents. Since the delay was not the applicant's fault, the court exercised its discretion not to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. Instead, the court granted the respondent and interested party a final 60-day period to file their responses and relevant documents, warning that this was their last chance. Costs were ordered to be in the cause, and further directions were scheduled.
Court Disposition
Suit not dismissed; respondent and interested party granted 60 days to file responses.
Orders
- The suit is not dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The respondent and interested party are granted 60 days as a last chance to file their responses and germane documents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 85 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY RUFUS M'NAIVASHA M'MIRITI FOR AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHAIRMAN MUTHAMBI DIVISIONAL LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL CASE. NO. 1 OF 2011 OVERLAND PARCEL NO. MUTHAMBI/KANDUNGU/308
BETWEEN
THE REPUBLIC …....................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE CHAIRMAN MUTHAMBI DIVISIONAL
LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL..............................................RESPONDENT
JULIUS MIRITI SEBASTIANO..................................INTERESTED PARTY
EX-PARTE
RUFUS M'NAIVASHA M'MIRITI............................EXPARTE APPLICANT
R U L I N G
1. This matter came up for showing cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. Mr. Kiogora for the Exparte Applicant told the Court that the delay in the hearing and determination of the case was largely occasioned by the failure of the Respondent and the Interested Party to file their responses and apposite documents.
3. Mr. Kiongo for the Respondent and Miss Nyaga for the Interested Party have indeed admitted to Court that they have not filed their responses and apposite documents.
4. The Exparte Applicant has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that this suit should not be dismissed.
5. The SUIT is NOT dismissed.
6. The Respondent and the Interested Party are given 60 days as a last chance to file their responses and germane documents.
7. Costs shall be in the cause.
8. Directions on 25/01/2017.
9. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C.A Daniel/James
Kiogora Arithi for the Exparte Applicant
Kiongo for the Respondent
Miss Nyaga for the Interested Party
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE