[2017] KEELC 3146 (KLR)
The court found that notice was properly issued to the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Neither the applicants nor the respondents attended court or provided any explanation for the delay or failure to prosecute the matter. The court noted that since the suit was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3146 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stanley Mutegi G. Muguongo; Applicant: Lameck Mati Edward (suing as the legal representative of Edward Rutere); Applicant: Kanampiu M’Murithi Kaburi; Applicant: Justus Kiruki Munyua; Respondent: The County Government of Tharaka Nithi; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: The National Land Commission
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 39 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- suit dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Management, Land Adjudication, Constitutional 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
Stanley Mutegi G. Muguongo
Applicant
Lameck Mati Edward (suing as the legal representative of Edward Rutere)
Applicant
Kanampiu M’Murithi Kaburi
Applicant
Justus Kiruki Munyua
Applicant
The County Government of Tharaka Nithi
Respondent
The Attorney General
Respondent
The National Land Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on 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.
- 2 Whether the parties have shown sufficient cause to prevent dismissal of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that notice was properly issued to the parties to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Neither the applicants nor the respondents attended court or provided any explanation for the delay or failure to prosecute the matter. The court noted that since the suit was filed, it had never been placed before a judge or any other judicial officer, indicating a lack of action by the parties. In the absence of any cause shown to the satisfaction of the court, and in accordance with Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO 39 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU PETITION NO. 2 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 10, 20, 21, 22, 27 & 40
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION AND PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL,
HIGH COURT PRACTICE & PROCEDURE RULES, 2006
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE LAND ADJUDICATION ACT 284 LAWS OF KENYA
BETWEEN
STANLEY MUTEGI G. MUGUONGO...................................................1ST PETITIONER
LAMECK MATI EDWARD (suing as the legal representative of Edward Rutere) …………………………………………………………........................2ND PETITIONER
KANAMPIU M’MURITHI KABURI……………………........................3RD PETITIONER
JUSTUS KIRUKI MUNYUA...................................................................4TH PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF THARAKA NITHI.....................1ST RESPONDENT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL..............................................................2ND RESPONDENT
THE NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION...........................................3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Notice was properly issued for parties to come to court on 20. 3.2017 to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of order 17 rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. On 20. 3.2017, the parties did not come to court to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed.
3. I do note that since the suit was filed the matter has never been placed before a judge or any other judicial officer.
4. I find that the parties have failed to come to court to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed. Therefore, no cause has been shown to the satisfaction of the court that this should NOT be dismissed.
5. In the circumstances, this suit is dismissed.
6. It is so ordered.
7. Delivered in open court at Chuka this 20th day of March, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Parties absent
P. M. NJOROGE,
JUDGE.