[2015] KEELRC 186 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in prosecuting the suit, citing ongoing related proceedings, financial constraints, and a succession cause as valid reasons. Both parties expressed a desire to proceed with the matter. The court exercised its discretion under Order 17...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 186 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Stephen Mwithia M’RuutI; Defendant: Joshua Muthuku; Defendant: Isabella Nkina M’Irera; Defendant: Lawrence Kiriinya Iburi
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 27 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit not dismissed; directions issued for compliance and further conduct of the case.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Management, Order 17 Civil Procedure Rules
- 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
Stephen Mwithia M’RuutI
Plaintiff
Joshua Muthuku
Defendant
Isabella Nkina M’Irera
Defendant
Lawrence Kiriinya Iburi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / 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 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff has shown sufficient cause to avoid dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in prosecuting the suit, citing ongoing related proceedings, financial constraints, and a succession cause as valid reasons. Both parties expressed a desire to proceed with the matter. The court exercised its discretion under Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules not to dismiss the suit, instead directing compliance with pre-trial procedures under Order 11 within specified timelines to facilitate the expeditious hearing of the case.
Court Disposition
Suit not dismissed; directions issued for compliance and further conduct of the case.
Orders
- Plaintiff to fully comply with Order 11 Civil Procedure Rules within 45 days.
- Defendant to comply within 45 days after service of compliance documents by the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
O. S. SUIT NO 27 OF 2010
STEPHEN MWITHIA M’RUUTI................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
JOSHUA MUTHUKU..........................................1ST DEFENDANT
ISABELLA NKINA M’IRERA..............................2ND DEFENDANT
LAWRENCE KIRIINYA IBURI ............................3RD DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
On 10th November, 2015, parties came to Court to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Mr. Edwin Kimathi, holding brief for Mr. Kaumbi, said that the Plaintiff had in an Affidavit filed on 9th November, 2015 given substantial reasons why this suit should not be dismissed. Among the reasons given is that there is a suit, Meru CMCC No. 773 OF 2003, involving the same parties for which he had applied for consolidation with this suit. In paragraph 6 of the Replying Affidavit, the Plaintiff averred that he had been bedevilled by financial problems and a Succession Cause in Meru Succession case No. 403 of 2005.
The plaintiff, through Mr. Kimathi, expressed his desire to prosecute the case diligently. He asked for one last chance.
Mr. Mutegi Mugambi, for the defendant, asked the Court to give the Plaintiff a chance to prosecute his case.
I find that cause has been shown to the satisfaction of this Court as to why this suit not be dismissed for want of prosecution in terms of Order 17 CPR. It is, therefore, not dismissed.
It is directed as follows:-
Plaintiff to fully comply with Order 11 CPR within 45 days of today and the defendant to do so within 45 days after compliance documents are served upon him by the Plaintiff.
Upon achievement of compliance, parties to obtain a mutually convenient date for directions from the Registry.
It is so ordered.
Delivered in Open Court at Meru this 10th day of November, 2015 in the presence of:-
Cc. Daniel /Lilian
E. Kimathi h/b Kaumbi for plaintiff
Mutegi for Defendant
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE