[2025] KEHC 9034 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9034 (KLR)

The court found that there had been no activity in the matter since 21st December, 2023, when the parties sought to withdraw the suit. Neither party nor their counsel attended the mention to provide an explanation for their absence. Applying Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court concluded that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9034 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Daniel Njinu Waruather; Plaintiff: Samuel Wanyoike Njuguna; Plaintiff: Joseph Mathu Mwai; Plaintiff: Francis Mugane Gathuku; Defendant: Attorney General (Sued for and on Behalf of the Registrar of Societies); Defendant: Peter Githuka Kamani; Defendant: Zipporah Wacheke Mugo; Defendant: John Rugu Njuguna
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kiambu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case E011 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Directions; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
DO Chepkwony
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Order 17 Rule 2, Case Management, Withdrawal of Suit
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Order 17 Rule 2 Case Management Withdrawal of Suit

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Njinu Waruather

Plaintiff

Samuel Wanyoike Njuguna

Plaintiff

Joseph Mathu Mwai

Plaintiff

Francis Mugane Gathuku

Plaintiff

Attorney General (Sued for and on Behalf of the Registrar of Societies)

Defendant

Peter Githuka Kamani

Defendant

Zipporah Wacheke Mugo

Defendant

John Rugu Njuguna

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Directions; Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of parties or their counsel at the mention warrants dismissal of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there had been no activity in the matter since 21st December, 2023, when the parties sought to withdraw the suit. Neither party nor their counsel attended the mention to provide an explanation for their absence. Applying Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court concluded that the plaintiffs were not interested in prosecuting the suit. Consequently, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.