https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7740

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7740

The court found, on the basis of the affidavit of service dated 13/3/2026, that the appellant had been duly served and was aware of the hearing date; because there was no appearance or response, the court held that the appeal had been abandoned and dismissed it for want of prosecution with costs.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 7740 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: DANIEL ONDWASI OTSYULA; 1st Respondent: ABDULALI SHARIFF JIRAJ & SONS LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: STEPHEN MURUNGA KUNDU
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E020 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Oral Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondents.
Judges
["E Ominde"]
Legal Topics
Want of Prosecution, Service of Hearing Notice, Dismissal of Appeal, Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Want of Prosecution Service of Hearing Notice Dismissal of Appeal Costs

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 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DANIEL ONDWASI OTSYULA

Appellant

ABDULALI SHARIFF JIRAJ & SONS LIMITED

1st Respondent

STEPHEN MURUNGA KUNDU

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Oral Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had been duly served with notice of hearing
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had lost interest in the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the basis of the affidavit of service dated 13/3/2026, that the appellant had been duly served and was aware of the hearing date; because there was no appearance or response, the court held that the appeal had been abandoned and dismissed it for want of prosecution with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondents.

Orders

  • The oral application to dismiss the appeal was allowed.
  • The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.