[2017] KEHC 7740 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 7740 (KLR)

The court found that the petitioner had complied with all court orders by filing submissions in a timely manner, while the respondents failed to file their submissions on the preliminary objection despite being given several opportunities, including a final chance. The delay in prosecution was therefore attributable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 7740 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Victor Mbae Mugambi; Respondent: District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer Mariani Adjudication Section; Respondent: Attorney General; Interested Party: M’Nthaka Mugwika
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 84 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Want of Prosecution
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed; suit not dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Preliminary Objection, Land Adjudication, Filing of Submissions
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Preliminary Objection Land Adjudication Filing of Submissions

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

Victor Mbae Mugambi

Applicant

District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer Mariani Adjudication Section

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

M’Nthaka Mugwika

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and 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 respondents' preliminary objection dated 28.10.2014 should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioner had complied with all court orders by filing submissions in a timely manner, while the respondents failed to file their submissions on the preliminary objection despite being given several opportunities, including a final chance. The delay in prosecution was therefore attributable to the respondents, not the petitioner. Consequently, the preliminary objection dated 28.10.2014 was dismissed, and the suit was not dismissed for want of prosecution. The court directed the petitioner to file and exchange submissions on the main petition within 14 days, with the other parties to respond within 14 days thereafter.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed; suit not dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The respondents’ preliminary objection dated 28.10.2014 is dismissed.
  • The petitioner to file and exchange submissions with regard to the petition within 14 days of the ruling.