[2017] KEELC 2088 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 2088 (KLR)

The court found that the appellants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not prosecuting the appeal within the prescribed period. Despite being given notice to show cause, only the 1st appellant appeared and his explanation—that he had left the matter to his advocates—was not sufficient to justify the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 2088 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Bernard Mbiuki Gatumu; Appellant: Lawrence Kamundi Gichunge; Respondent: Catherine M. Kamundi; Respondent: Dominic K. Gichunge
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 73 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeals Process, Court Management
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeals Process Court Management

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard Mbiuki Gatumu

Appellant

Lawrence Kamundi Gichunge

Appellant

Catherine M. Kamundi

Respondent

Dominic K. Gichunge

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 42 Rule 35(2) and Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not prosecuting the appeal within the prescribed period. Despite being given notice to show cause, only the 1st appellant appeared and his explanation—that he had left the matter to his advocates—was not sufficient to justify the delay. The court, therefore, exercised its discretion under Order 42 Rule 35(2) and Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, as no cause was shown to the satisfaction of the court.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • No order as to costs.