[2019] KEHC 8370 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 8370 (KLR)

The court found that the appellants had demonstrated a consistent pattern of delay and indolence in prosecuting the appeal, including failing to file a proper record of appeal and missing multiple court dates despite being given opportunities to comply. The explanation provided by their counsel for non-attendance on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 8370 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Cliff R. Ndirangu; Appellant: Rachael Wanjiku; Respondent: Dominic Njoroge Ngugi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kiambu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 162 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Reinstatement of Dismissed Appeal
Outcome
application for reinstatement of appeal dismissed with costs
Judges
CW Meoli
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Appeal, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Exercise of Discretion, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Reinstatement of Appeal Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Exercise of Discretion Delay in Prosecution

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

Cliff R. Ndirangu

Appellant

Rachael Wanjiku

Appellant

Dominic Njoroge Ngugi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Reinstatement of Dismissed Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be reinstated after dismissal for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for non-attendance by the appellants' counsel is sufficient to warrant reinstatement.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants' delay in prosecuting the appeal is excusable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants had demonstrated a consistent pattern of delay and indolence in prosecuting the appeal, including failing to file a proper record of appeal and missing multiple court dates despite being given opportunities to comply. The explanation provided by their counsel for non-attendance on the date of dismissal was deemed unconvincing, especially in light of evidence suggesting conflicting commitments and lack of effort to mitigate absence. The court held that the appellants were not deserving of the court's discretion to reinstate the appeal, as their conduct prejudiced the respondent and undermined the principle that litigation must come to an end....

Court Disposition

application for reinstatement of appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The motion filed on 3/7/18 for reinstatement of the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.