of mandamus is to compel the performance of a ministerial duty that one charged with the duty has refused to perform. The writ can only be issued to compel a party to act when it was his duty to act without it.... A litigant asking relief by mandamus must allege and prove that he has a clear, unequivocal, specific right to a thing claimed.... Mandamus does not issue except in cases where the ministerial duty sought to be coerced is definite, arising under conditions admitted or proved and imposed by law. Furlong Cos. v. City of Kan. City, 189 S.W.3d 157, 165-66 (Mo. banc 2006) (citations omitted). A writ of mandamus will be proper when the circuit court wrongfully denies a party’s motion to dismiss. State ex rel. Jewish Hosp. of St. Louis v. Buder, 540 S.W.2d 100, 108 (Mo.App.1976) (<HOLDING>); see also State ex rel. Corcoran v. Buder, 428
holding that the charge was timely when filed within the statute of limitations period even though served after the period holding that in the absence of an exception a motion filed outside the twoyear period will not invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court holding that when the defendant asserted in her answer that she was not a tenant and that she had an equitable interest in the property ejectment not eviction was the proper remedy and the matter should have been transferred to the circuit court holding that an action filed outside the statutory period of limitations should be dismissed and that mandamus was the proper remedy when the circuit court had denied the defendants motion to dismiss holding that the notice of appeal filed after the district court entered judgment as to one defendant but before the court dismissed the claims against the other defendants would have become effective when those defendants were later dismissed