Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | Civil Suit 14 of 2006 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | Karuthu Magiri alias Mary Magiri (suing as the administratrix of the Estate of M’Magiri M’Anampiu v John Kaburu Magiri, Settlement Funds Trustee, M’Rutere M’Ngurathi & Florence Muthoni Abira Charles |
| Date Delivered: | 12 Nov 2015 |
| Case Class: | Civil |
| Court: | Environment and Land Court at Meru |
| Case Action: | Ruling |
| Judge(s): | Peter Muchoki Njoroge |
| Citation: | Karuthu Magiri alias Mary Magiri (suing as the administratrix of the Estate of M’Magiri M’Anampiu v John Kaburu Magiri & 3 others [2015] eKLR |
| Advocates: | Dickson Kimathi for the Plaintiffs Muthamia for the Defendants |
| Court Division: | Land and Environment |
| County: | Meru |
| Advocates: | Dickson Kimathi for the Plaintiffs Muthamia for the Defendants |
| History Advocates: | Both Parties Represented |
| Case Outcome: | Suit dismissed |
| Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL SUIT NO 14 OF 2006
KARUTHU MAGIRI alias MARY MAGIRI (Suing as the administratrix
of the estate of M’MAGIRI M’ANAMPIU ................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JOHN KABURU MAGIRI ....................................................................1st DEFENDANT
SETTLEMENT FUNDS TRUSTEE.......................................................2ND DEFENDANT
M’RUTERE M’NGURATHI.................................................................3RD DEFENDANT
FLORENCE MUTHONI ABIRA CHARLES .......................................4TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
Parties were issued with a Notice to show cause, Under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, why this suit should not be dismissed.
On 12/11/2015, Mr. Dickson Kimathi for the Plaintiff told the Court that his firm had filed an application to cease acting for the Plaintiff dated 30/01/2013. He told the Court that their firm had been directed to serve the application upon their Client, the Plaintiff. However, he said, they have been unable to trace him.
Mr. Muthamia told the Court that the suit should be dismissed because of non-prosecution.
I find that the parties have shown no cause to the satisfaction of this Court as to why this suit should not be dismissed. This suit is, therefore dismissed.
I award no costs as the defendants have not demonstrated their eagerness to have the suit heard expeditiously.
It is so ordered.
Delivered in open Court at Meru this 12th day of November, 2015 in the presence of:
CC: Lilian /Daniel
Dickson Kimathi for Plaintiffs
Muthamia for Defendants
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE
Please Wait. Searching ...