[2019] KEHC 4963 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 4963 (KLR)

The court found that the delay in prosecuting the appeal was not due to any fault or inaction on the part of the appellant, but rather resulted from the failure of the lower court to supply the necessary record and proceedings. Since the procedural steps required for dismissal under Order 42 Rule 35(1) had not been...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 4963 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Edna Bosibori Arati t/a Sandy Beaches Safaris & Logistics; Respondent: La Mada Hotels Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 324 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeals Process, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeals Process 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edna Bosibori Arati t/a Sandy Beaches Safaris & Logistics

Appellant

La Mada Hotels Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to delay in filing the record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecution is attributable to the appellant or systemic shortcomings of the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in prosecuting the appeal was not due to any fault or inaction on the part of the appellant, but rather resulted from the failure of the lower court to supply the necessary record and proceedings. Since the procedural steps required for dismissal under Order 42 Rule 35(1) had not been completed, and the appellant had made efforts to obtain the record, it would be unjust to dismiss the appeal. The court emphasized that dismissing the appeal would unfairly deprive the appellant of the right to be heard due to institutional shortcomings beyond their control.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution is dismissed.
  • The Deputy Registrar shall ensure that the lower court record is availed to the appellant within 30 days from the date of this ruling.