[2018] KEHC 2004 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 2004 (KLR)

The court found that the appellants had failed to take any meaningful steps to prosecute the appeal after filing the memorandum of appeal, including failing to file the record of appeal despite being prompted by the Registrar. However, the court held that the application for dismissal was premature because, under...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 2004 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Bernard Bisonga Sungura; Appellant: Daima Connections Ltd; Respondent: Harrison Ogendo Opiyo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Naivasha
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 115 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed as premature; strict compliance orders issued against appellants.
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeals Process, Record of Appeal Filing, Directions Under Order 42, Costs Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeals Process Record of Appeal Filing Directions Under Order 42 Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard Bisonga Sungura

Appellant

Daima Connections Ltd

Appellant

Harrison Ogendo Opiyo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the appellants' failure to file the record of appeal and take steps to prosecute the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application for dismissal is premature in the absence of directions under Order 42 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants had failed to take any meaningful steps to prosecute the appeal after filing the memorandum of appeal, including failing to file the record of appeal despite being prompted by the Registrar. However, the court held that the application for dismissal was premature because, under Order 42 Rule 35(2), an appeal can only be dismissed for want of prosecution after directions have been given under Rule 13, which had not occurred in this case. The court therefore declined to dismiss the appeal but issued strict timelines for the appellants to file the record of appeal and list the matter for directions, warning that failure to comply would result in automatic...

Court Disposition

Application for dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed as premature; strict compliance orders issued against appellants.

Orders

  • The appellants shall file the record of appeal within ten (10) days from the date of this ruling.
  • The appellants shall cause the file to be listed before the Judge in chambers for admission and directions within fourteen (14) days from the date hereof.