[2015] KEHC 5828 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 5828 (KLR)

The court found that the appellants, after filing the appeal in May 2010, had failed to take any steps to prosecute it, including not listing the appeal for directions or appointing a new advocate after their previous advocate withdrew. The appellants were properly served with the application for dismissal but did...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 5828 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Beatrice Wambui Gikunju; Appellant: Rose Wambui Gikunju; Respondent: Samson Mbui Obadiah Koigi; Respondent: Albert Gikunju Njeru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 54 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 1st respondent.
Judges
BN Olao
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Procedure, Failure to Prosecute
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeal Procedure Failure to Prosecute

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beatrice Wambui Gikunju

Appellant

Rose Wambui Gikunju

Appellant

Samson Mbui Obadiah Koigi

Respondent

Albert Gikunju Njeru

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inaction by the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were properly served and given an opportunity to be heard.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants, after filing the appeal in May 2010, had failed to take any steps to prosecute it, including not listing the appeal for directions or appointing a new advocate after their previous advocate withdrew. The appellants were properly served with the application for dismissal but did not appear or respond. The court concluded that there was inordinate and unexplained delay in prosecuting the appeal, justifying its dismissal for want of prosecution. The application was therefore allowed and the appeal dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the 1st respondent.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st respondent.