[2017] KEHC 5292 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 5292 (KLR)

The court found that although the appeal had not been prosecuted for a considerable period and the appellant had failed to take essential steps, there was no evidence that the 4th respondent had been properly served with the relevant court orders or suit documents. The court noted that the case was old and that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 5292 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Halima H. Gonjobe; Respondent: Halima Farah Abdi; Respondent: Mohamed Farah Abdi; Respondent: Mohammud Farah Abdi; Respondent: Celtel (Kenya) Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 23 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed; directions issued for hearing of appeal
Judges
LN Mbugua
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Service of Process

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

Halima H. Gonjobe

Appellant

Halima Farah Abdi

Respondent

Mohamed Farah Abdi

Respondent

Mohammud Farah Abdi

Respondent

Celtel (Kenya) 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 inaction by the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the 4th respondent was properly served and brought on record before the application could be determined.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the appeal had not been prosecuted for a considerable period and the appellant had failed to take essential steps, there was no evidence that the 4th respondent had been properly served with the relevant court orders or suit documents. The court noted that the case was old and that the advocates for the parties had not been diligent in following up the matter. In the interests of justice and fair hearing, the court declined to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution at this stage. Instead, the court directed that the appeal be listed for hearing forthwith and that the appellant serve the 4th respondent with the suit documents and hearing date.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; directions issued for hearing of appeal

Orders

  • The application dated 24th June, 2015 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
  • The appeal to be listed down for hearing forthwith as the lower court file and the record of appeal are in the file.