[2024] KEHC 12558 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 12558 (KLR)

The court found that there had been no activity in the matter for over three years since the last ruling was delivered on 13th May, 2021. Neither the applicant nor the respondents, nor their respective counsel, attended the hearing or filed any response to the Notice to Show Cause. The absence of any action or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 12558 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Monica Waithera Thuo; Respondent: Daniel Thuo Ngugi; Respondent: Family Bank Limited; Respondent: Land Registrar, Thika; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kiambu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Commercial Case 7 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
DO Chepkwony
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Case Backlog Management, Notice to Show Cause
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Case Backlog Management Notice to Show Cause

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monica Waithera Thuo

Applicant

Daniel Thuo Ngugi

Respondent

Family Bank Limited

Respondent

Land Registrar, Thika

Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the parties, particularly the applicant, have demonstrated any interest in prosecuting the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there had been no activity in the matter for over three years since the last ruling was delivered on 13th May, 2021. Neither the applicant nor the respondents, nor their respective counsel, attended the hearing or filed any response to the Notice to Show Cause. The absence of any action or explanation indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the suit. The court determined that the continued pendency of the matter was contributing to case backlog and, in the absence of any steps taken by the parties, it was appropriate to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.