Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment text supplied· [2017] KEELC 1279 (KLR)

Law & Social Development Trust (LASODET) & 3002 others v Attorney General & 12 others [2017] KEELC 1279 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
31 October 2017
PNP. M. Njoroge
502 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court dismissed a stagnant lawsuit because the petitioners ignored it for over a year, but let everyone walk away without paying costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an application dated 13th January 2017 by the 5th respondent seeking dismissal of the petitioners' suit for want of prosecution, supported by the affidavit of Joe Kathungu, the advocate with conduct of the matter for the 5th respondent. The grounds were that more than one year had elapsed since the ruling of 18th December 2014 on two earlier applications, that the petitioners had not set the suit down for hearing since then, and that the delay was inordinate and demonstrated loss of interest. When the application was heard inter partes on 31st October 2017, it was supported by the 5th and 11th respondents and the 1st interested party. The court held that the 5th respondent's inability to serve the 3rd petitioner was not fatal to the application. Relying on Order 17, which permits dismissal where parties fail after one year to show cause why a suit should not be dismissed, the court found that neither the 3rd petitioner nor the other petitioners had moved the court for over a year and that they had not shown cause to the court's satisfaction why the suit should continue. The suit was accordingly dismissed. However, because the suit appeared to be public interest litigation, the court declined to award costs to any party and directed that each party bear its own costs. The judgment was delivered in open court at Chuka on 31st October 2017 by P. M. Njoroge, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Dismissal for want of prosecution under Order 17

Holding

The suit was dismissed because the petitioners had not taken any step to prosecute it for over a year after the ruling of 18th December 2014 and failed to show cause why it should not be dismissed

Reasoning

The application was supported by the 5th and 11th respondents and the 1st interested party. The court noted that more than one year had elapsed since the last court appearance for a ruling, and that the 3rd petitioner, like the other petitioners, had not moved the court in any way. The court held that the parties had not shown cause to its satisfaction why the suit should not be dismissed, and accordingly dismissed it.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Under Order 17 a court may dismiss a suit where, after one year, the parties do not show cause to the satisfaction of the court why it should not be dismissed
  • Failure to serve a party with an application for dismissal for want of prosecution is not necessarily fatal to the application
  • In public interest litigation the court may decline to award costs and direct that parties bear their own costs

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 17
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules (dismissal for want of prosecution); suit originally filed as a petition

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Law & Social Development Trust (LASODET) & 3002 others v Attorney General & 12 others [2017] KEELC 1279 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment text supplied. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1279/eng@2017-10-31

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.