Civil Case 702 of 2005

Help

Advanced Search mode is suitable for finding a particular case when you have details that describe the case at hand e.g. (names of parties, case number, case year etc).
To find a case according to its meta data (names of parties, case number, and date of delivery, case year etc) one need not fill in all the fields. You may use any one or more search criteria; search using whatever information you have..

Download: PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML Show Metadata

RUTH WAIRIMU KIMOTHO v MARY MURUGI NGANGA & ANOTHER [2010] eKLR

Case Metadata
Case Number:	Civil Case 702 of 2005
Parties:	RUTH WAIRIMU KIMOTHO v MARY MURUGI NGANGA & AGNES NJERI
Date Delivered:	10 Mar 2010
Case Class:	Civil
Court:	High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Case Action:	Ruling
Judge(s):	Aggrey Otsyula Muchelule
Citation:	RUTH WAIRIMU KIMOTHO v MARY MURUGI NGANGA & ANOTHER [2010] eKLR
Parties Profile:	Individual v Individual
County:	Nairobi
Case Summary:	.
Case Outcome:	Summons dismissed for want of prosecution.
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 NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)

Civil Case 702 of 2005

RUTH WAIRIMU KIMOTHO ………………………………PLAINTIFF

AND

MARY MURUGI NGANGA……………………………1^ST DEFENDANT

AGNES NJERI…………………………………………..2^ND DEFENDANT

TERESIAH WANJIRU …………………..…………….3^RD DEFENDANT

R U L I N G

The Plaintiff filed this suit by way of originating summons on 8^th June, 2005 seeking the determination that she had acquired land parcel No. LOC.8/YAMUGWE/858 by adverse possession having been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the same for a period in excess of 12 years. On 14^th July, 2005 the 1^st Defendant filed a replying affidavit on her own and on behalf of the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants denying the claims in the summons and supporting affidavit. Since then, the Plaintiff has not taken any step to have directions taken or the suit set down for hearing. On 10^th February, 2009 the Defendants filed this application under Order 16 rule 5(a) and Order 35 rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules to have the suit dismissed with costs for want of prosecution. The application was served but elicited no response.

About 3½ years had passed when the application was filed. The Plaintiff just filed the summons and then abandoned the matter. She did not respond to the application and one cannot say, therefore, that she wants to remedy her default. The purpose of Order 16 rule 5 (a) of the Civil Procedure Rules is to provide the court with a discretion to disencumber itself of cases in which the parties appear to have lost interest and also to relief the Defendants of the burden of such cases hanging around their necks. I order the summons dismissed with costs for want of prosecution.

DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI

THIS 10^TH DAY OF MARCH 2010

A. O. MUCHELULE

J U D G E

Download PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML

Please enter advanced search options

Case Content:		Subject:
Case Number:		Parties:
Judge:		Court:
	Delivery Date Range:
From:		To:

Except for some material which is expressly stated to be under a specified Creative Commons license, the contents of this website are in the public domain and free from any copyright restrictions

Case Search

Civil Case 702 of 2005

Case Metadata

Please enter advanced search options