[2017] KEELC 3217 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3217 (KLR)

The court found that the Defendants' application for dismissal for want of prosecution was premature because the statutory period of one year had not lapsed at the time the application was filed. The record showed that the matter was mentioned on 29th June 2015, and the application was filed on 21st June 2016, which...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3217 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Willim Roman Mc. Touch; Defendant: Lawrence O. Hongo; Defendant: Lawrence O. Hongo (as administrator of the estate of Michael Hongo Ayieko)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 58 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Limitation of Actions, Registered Land, Civil Procedure Rules, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Limitation of Actions Registered Land Civil Procedure Rules Costs Award

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willim Roman Mc. Touch

Plaintiff

Lawrence O. Hongo

Defendant

Lawrence O. Hongo (as administrator of the estate of Michael Hongo Ayieko)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for 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 Plaintiff had failed to take any step in the matter for more than one year.
  3. 3 Whether the application for dismissal was filed prematurely.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendants' application for dismissal for want of prosecution was premature because the statutory period of one year had not lapsed at the time the application was filed. The record showed that the matter was mentioned on 29th June 2015, and the application was filed on 21st June 2016, which was about eight days before the expiry of the one-year period required under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court also held that the Plaintiff had taken steps in the matter within the relevant period, and therefore, the threshold for dismissal had not been met. The court further found that the application was properly before it despite the Plaintiff's...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 14th June 2016 and filed on 21st June 2016 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.