[2018] KEELC 3320 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants and the interested party failed to attend court and did not show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The absence of any explanation or action by the applicants demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the court exercised...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3320 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Shadrack Kabii M'Rewa, Frida Kanana Stephen, Mbae Ngaine, David Kirimi and Terry Wawira; Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Maara Sub County
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 17 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2, Judicial Review Procedure
- 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
Shadrack Kabii M'Rewa, Frida Kanana Stephen, Mbae Ngaine, David Kirimi and Terry Wawira
Applicant
Deputy Commissioner Maara Sub County
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / 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 under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants and the interested party failed to attend court and did not show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The absence of any explanation or action by the applicants demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution and awarded costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs are awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA JUDICIAL REVIEW CASE NO. 17 OF 2017
SHADRACK KABII M’REWA, FRIDA KANANA STEPHEN, MBAE NGAINE,
DAVID KIRIMI AND TERRY WAWIRA..........................................APPLICANTS
VERSUS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAARA SUB COUNTY..................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Notice was properly issued for the parties to come to court to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of the provision of Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. The Ex-parte Applicant and the Interested Party were not in Court. Mr. Kiongo, for the Respondent told the court that their absence was a clear indication that they were no longer interested in the suit. He urged the court to dismiss it with costs to the Respondents.
3. I find that this suit merits dismissal.
4. In the circumstances, this suit is hereby dismissed.
5. Costs are awarded to the Respondent.
6. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open Court at Chuka this 17th day of May, 2018 in the presence of:
C.A: Ndegwa
Kiongo for the Respondent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE