[2016] KEHC 1989 (KLR)
The court found that the petitioner had failed to take any action to prosecute the petition since its filing in 2012, had not complied with the court's previous directions to amend the petition and list it for hearing, and had not responded to the present application or appeared in court. The court concluded that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 1989 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Robert Ndegwa Muruthi – Chairman, James K. Kabucho – Vice Chairman, Apolo Macira – Secretary, Laikipia Development Initiative; Respondent: Mayor Town Clerk; Respondent: Samuel Waweru – Chairman, Cyrus Muriithi – Secretary, Mainya Travellers Sacco; Respondent: Commissioner of Lands; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General of Republic of Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Constitutional Petition 8 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- petition struck out for want of prosecution
- Judges
- JV Juma
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Right to Be Heard, Public Land Management, Environmental Rights
- 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
Robert Ndegwa Muruthi – Chairman, James K. Kabucho – Vice Chairman, Apolo Macira – Secretary, Laikipia Development Initiative
Petitioner
Mayor Town Clerk
Respondent
Samuel Waweru – Chairman, Cyrus Muriithi – Secretary, Mainya Travellers Sacco
Respondent
Commissioner of Lands
Respondent
Hon. Attorney General of Republic of Kenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the petitioner's inaction.
- 2 Whether the petitioner complied with previous court directions to amend and prosecute the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the petitioner had failed to take any action to prosecute the petition since its filing in 2012, had not complied with the court's previous directions to amend the petition and list it for hearing, and had not responded to the present application or appeared in court. The court concluded that the petitioner had abandoned the petition and that there was no justification to keep the matter alive. Accordingly, the court allowed the application and struck out the petition for want of prosecution, with costs to be borne by the petitioner.
Court Disposition
petition struck out for want of prosecution
Orders
- The petition dated 8/3/2012 is struck out for lack of prosecution.
- Costs to be met by the Petitioner/Respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 8 2012
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 22, 23 AND 165 3(B) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 42, 62, 69 AND 73 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA 2010
AND
AND IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRACTIONOF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLES 19,
20,21, 40 42, 47, 62, 66, 69, AND 73 OF THE RIGHTS TO HAVE A CLEANA ND HEALTHY
ENVIRONMENT AND RIGHT TOA FAIR PARTICIPATION ON MATTERS AFFECTING
PUBLIC LAND AND ENVIRONMENT AND ADMINISTRTIVE ACTION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTIAON OF KENYA (SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION
AND PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL) HIGH COURT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES
BETWEEN
ROBERT NDEGWA MURUTHI – CHAIRMAN
JAMES K. KABUCHO – VICE CHAIRMAN
APOLO MACIRA – SECRETARY
LAIKIPIA DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE..................PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
MAYOR TOWN CLERK.....................................1ST RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
SAMUEL WAWERU – CHAIRMAN
CYRUS MURIITHI – SECRETARY
MAINYA TRAVELLERS SACCO.............................................2ND RESPONDENT
COMMISSIONER OF LANDS................................................3RD RESPONDENT
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF REPUBLI OF KENYA......4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
Before court is the Notice of Motion dated 7/5/2015 seeking orders as follows:
“1. THAT this Honourable court be pleased to dismiss this suit for want of prosecution
2. THAT the costs of this Application be provided for”
The application was set down for hearing on 16th August, 2016. All parties were properly served with Notice of the hearing date. The Petitioner failed to file any response to the application and failed to appear in court on the hearing date.
MR. MAINA argued the application on behalf of the 2nd Respondent. MR. MUKIIRA for the Interested Party and MR. WACHIRA for the Hon. Attorney General both indicated their support for the application.
This Petition was first filed on 8th March, 2012. The Petitioner took no action to prosecute the petition and it was last mentioned in court on 27th July, 2012.
On 28th January 2014 an application was made to dismiss the petition. Just like in the present case the Petitioner did not respond to that application nor did they attend court on the hearing date. Hon Justice Waithaka in her ruling dated 7/11/2014 directed that the Petitioner amend their petition and have the matter listed for hearing within 60 days.
Again the Petitioner sat tight and took no action to comply with these directions. It is now two years down the road. The Petitioner is still silent. It is clear they have no intention to prosecute this petition and have abandoned the same. There exists no further justification to keep the Petition alive. As such I do allow this application and I hereby strike out the petition dated 8/3/2012 for lack of prosecution. Costs to be met by the Petitioner/Respondent. It is so ordered.
Dated in Nakuru this 2nd day of September, 2016.
Mr. Maina holding brief for Mr. Mwangi for 2nd Respondent
No appearance for Petitioner
Maureen Odero
Judge
2/9/2016