[2025] KEHC 5474 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 5474 (KLR)

The court found that since the filing of the petition in June 2024, there had been no steps taken by the petitioner or any of the respondents to prosecute the matter. Despite issuance of a Notice to Show Cause on 18th March 2025, no party appeared or filed any response. The court concluded that the parties, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 5474 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Snow Trend Limited; Respondent: Attorney General; Respondent: Inspector General of Police; Respondent: Patrick Kabue Kinuthia; Respondent: Veronica Wambui Kinuthia; Respondent: Tadeo Gitau; Respondent: Kagunya Munyus; Respondent: Weshe Munyus Mweusi; Respondent: Peter Kamau Njeri; Respondent: Joshua Kamau Gacura; Respondent: Joseph Ndogi Njoroge; Respondent: Stanley Mwaura Mangi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kiambu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition E025 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
petition dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
DO Chepkwony
Legal Topics
Bill of Rights, Right to Property, Right to Fair Hearing
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Bill of Rights Right to Property Right to Fair Hearing

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Snow Trend Limited

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Inspector General of Police

Respondent

Patrick Kabue Kinuthia

Respondent

Veronica Wambui Kinuthia

Respondent

Tadeo Gitau

Respondent

Kagunya Munyus

Respondent

Weshe Munyus Mweusi

Respondent

Peter Kamau Njeri

Respondent

Joshua Kamau Gacura

Respondent

Joseph Ndogi Njoroge

Respondent

Stanley Mwaura Mangi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inaction by the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the constitutional petition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that since the filing of the petition in June 2024, there had been no steps taken by the petitioner or any of the respondents to prosecute the matter. Despite issuance of a Notice to Show Cause on 18th March 2025, no party appeared or filed any response. The court concluded that the parties, and particularly the petitioner, had lost interest in the suit. To prevent clogging of the court system with inactive cases, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The suit is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.