[2024] KEELC 4204 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any meaningful step to prosecute the suit since the dismissal of the interlocutory application in November 2021. Despite repeated opportunities and reminders from the court, the plaintiff neither filed the required evidence nor demonstrated any intention or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 4204 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lengur Ole Sairi; Defendant: County Government Of Kajiado; Defendant: Kajiado Lands Registrar; Defendant: Grace Mumbi Muthoni; Defendant: Shirima Firminus Msue; Defendant: Isaiah Wachira Gichohi; Defendant: Rose Wanjiru Kariuki; Defendant: Peter Morara Mogeri; Defendant: Wesley Risancho Kasuku; Defendant: Mageh Investments Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 60 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendants.
- Judges
- MN Gicheru
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Mandatory Filing Requirements, Delay in Prosecution, Land Disputes
- 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
Lengur Ole Sairi
Plaintiff
County Government Of Kajiado
Defendant
Kajiado Lands Registrar
Defendant
Grace Mumbi Muthoni
Defendant
Shirima Firminus Msue
Defendant
Isaiah Wachira Gichohi
Defendant
Rose Wanjiru Kariuki
Defendant
Peter Morara Mogeri
Defendant
Wesley Risancho Kasuku
Defendant
Mageh Investments Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the plaintiff's inaction.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff complied with mandatory filing requirements under the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff demonstrated any cause or evidence to justify continuation of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take any meaningful step to prosecute the suit since the dismissal of the interlocutory application in November 2021. Despite repeated opportunities and reminders from the court, the plaintiff neither filed the required evidence nor demonstrated any intention or effort to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under Order 3 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court emphasized that the requirements for filing witness statements and documents are mandatory and that the plaintiff's inaction amounted to a disregard of both procedural law and the constitutional imperative for expeditious justice. The court concluded that there was no...
Court Disposition
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the defendants.
Orders
- The suit is dismissed under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Costs awarded to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
Sairi v County Government of Kajiado & 8 others (Environment & Land Case 60 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 4204 (KLR) (14 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 4204 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
Environment & Land Case 60 of 2020
MN Gicheru, J
May 14, 2024
Between
Lengur Ole Sairi
Plaintiff
and
County Government Of Kajiado
1st Defendant
Kajiado Lands Registrar
2nd Defendant
Grace Mumbi Muthoni
3rd Defendant
Shirima Firminus Msue
4th Defendant
Isaiah Wachira Gichohi
5th Defendant
Rose Wanjiru Kariuki
6th Defendant
Peter Morara Mogeri
7th Defendant
Wesley Risancho Kasuku
8th Defendant
Mageh Investments Limited
9th Defendant
Ruling
1. On 24th April 2024, this case came up for notice to show cause why it should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The suit was filed on 16th September 2020 simultaneously with an application for injunction which sought to restrain the defendants from entering, encroaching, trespassing, working, developing, constructing, selling or disposing L.R. Kajiado/Olchoro-Onyore/8727, 8728, 8729 and 8730 together with any subsequent subdivisions. The motion was dismissed on 3/11/2021.
2. Since the dismissal of the motion on 3/11/2021, the plaintiff has not taken any step to prosecute the suit. The matter has come up before court on 1/12/2021, 14/3/2022, 23/6/2022, 6/12/2021, 21/3/2023, 23/11/2023 and finally on 24/4/2024. On all those dates, the court has been coaxing the plaintiff to prosecute the case or it be dismissed.
3. On 24/4/2024, all that the plaintiff’s counsel could do was to ask for more time to file evidence in the case.
4. Since the year 2010, it has been the requirement of the law that at the filing of a plaint, the plaintiff also files the following,b.A list of witnesses to be called at the trial.a.Written statements signed by the witnesses excluding expert witnesses.b.Copies of documents to be relied on at the trial including a demand letter before action.This is as per Order 3 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The requirements to file the plaint together with the accompanying material is mandatory. There is a mandatory shall in subsection (2).
5. Section 3(1) of the Environment and Land Act requires that land cases be heard in a manner that is just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable. Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act repeat the same requirement. Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya requires that justice should not be delayed.
6. From the above, it is obvious that the plaintiff has failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the law. Soon, it will be four (4) years since this suit was filed. The plaintiff has not only failed to prosecute the suit but he has also failed to demonstrate that he has any evidence to prove the serious allegations that he made in his pleadings. Worse still, he has failed to demonstrate passion on gathering any evidence at all.I find that the plaintiff has no cause to show why this suit should not be dismissed. I dismiss it under Order 17 Rule 2 (1) Civil Procedure Rules with costs to the defendants.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAJIADO VIRTUALLY THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 2024. M.N. GICHERUJUDGE