[2016] KEHC 4466 (KLR)
The court found that the ex parte applicant had failed to take any action in the suit for over a year, and no cause was shown as to why the suit should not be dismissed. The applicant's advocate confirmed that the applicant had died over three years ago and that he had no client to represent. In the absence of any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 4466 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: M'Iriya Baariu; Respondent: Igembe North and South District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer; Respondent: Attorney-General; Applicant: Thaine Pancras Limbine
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 83 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Judicial Review, Land Adjudication, Costs Award
- 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
M'Iriya Baariu
Applicant
Igembe North and South District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer
Respondent
Attorney-General
Respondent
Thaine Pancras Limbine
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the ex parte applicant has taken any steps to prosecute the suit.
- 3 Whether the Interested Party is prejudiced by the delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the ex parte applicant had failed to take any action in the suit for over a year, and no cause was shown as to why the suit should not be dismissed. The applicant's advocate confirmed that the applicant had died over three years ago and that he had no client to represent. In the absence of any steps taken to prosecute the suit and no opposition to the application for dismissal, the court was satisfied that the requirements for dismissal for want of prosecution under Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules had been met. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed and costs were awarded to the Interested Party.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs are awarded to the Interested Party.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
MISC. APPLICATION NO 83 OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE JUDICIAL REVIEWPROCEEDINNGGS
FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAW REFORN ACT, CAP 26, THE LAND CONSOLIDATION ACT,
CAP 83,LAWS OF KENYA AND ORDER 1 111 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES:
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS, FINDINGS AND DECISION MADE ON 28. 05. 2010IN
OBJECTION NO. 1774. OVER PARCEL OF LAND AND NO. 901 SITUATEIN AKIRANGGONDU
'A' ADJUDICATIONSECTION WITHIN IGEMBE NORTH DISTRICT.
BETWEEN
M'IRIYA BAARIU..............................................................EX PARTE APPLICANT
VERSUS
IGEMBE NORTH AND SOUTH DISTRICT LAND
ADJUDICATIONAND SETTLEMENT OFFICER.................1ST RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY-GENERAL.........................................................2ND RESPONDENT
THAINE PANCRAS LIMBINE.......................INTERESTED PARTY/APPLICANT
R U L I N G
1. This application, stated to be predicated upon order 50 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Rules and Order 17 Rules 2 (1) and 2 (3), Procedure Rules, is dated 6th November, 2014. The application seeks orders:-
1. That the Plaintiff's suit be dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. That the costs and incidentals to this application be provided for;
2. The application has the following grounds:-
i.That the exparte applicant has failed to take any action since he filed this suit.
ii.That the ex-parte applicant is enjoying the suit land to the detriment of the Interested Party.
iii.That the exparte applicant will not suffer any prejudice.
3. The application was heard on 21/04/2016.
4. Mr. Lekoona, Advocate for the Interested Party, told the Court that he wanted the suit dismissed for want of prosecution as required by Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules. He told the Court that no step as envisaged by Order 17, CPR, had been taken for over 1 year.
5. Mr. Manases Kariuki, the Advocate for exparte applicant told the Court that he had established from his client's brother that he had died over 3 years ago. He told the Court that he had no client.
6. I note that the applicant did not give any reason as to why the suit should not be dismissed. I am, therefore, satisfied that the Defendant had not shown any cause as to why the suit should not be dismissed.
7. In the Circumstances, this suit is dismissed. Costs are awarded to the Interested Party.
It is so ordered.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF:
CC: Daniel/Lilian
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE