[2011] KEHC 1758 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 1758 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal for over ten years since the memorandum of appeal was served. Under Order XLI Rule 31(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the registrar is mandated to list such appeals for dismissal. The applicant demonstrated that the statutory...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] KEHC 1758 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Concorde Container Services Ltd; Respondent: Francis Ndungu Wainaina
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 744 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal of Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Employer Liability, Personal Injury, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Employer Liability Personal Injury Appeal Procedure

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Concorde Container Services Ltd

Appellant

Francis Ndungu Wainaina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inaction for over 12 months after service of the memorandum of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the deposited decreetal sum should be released to the respondent/original plaintiff upon dismissal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal for over ten years since the memorandum of appeal was served. Under Order XLI Rule 31(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the registrar is mandated to list such appeals for dismissal. The applicant demonstrated that the statutory period had lapsed without action, and the appellant was not present or represented. The court therefore granted the application, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, and ordered that the decreetal sum deposited in court as security be released to the respondent/original plaintiff. Costs were awarded to the respondent in both the High Court and subordinate court.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • The decreetal sum deposited in court is to be released to the respondent/original plaintiff.