[2014] KEHC 2899 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 2899 (KLR)

The court found that the appellants were responsible for the delay in prosecuting the appeal, having failed to seek certified copies of proceedings and judgment in a timely manner and not demonstrating adequate effort to obtain them. The court held that the appellants acted without due diligence and could not shift...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 2899 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Hesbon Amata; Appellant: Tenolde Kidane Temsegen; Respondent: David Maina Waithaka
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 213 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent
Judges
DA Onyancha
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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hesbon Amata

Appellant

Tenolde Kidane Temsegen

Appellant

David Maina Waithaka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal that has not been admitted or had directions taken.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants were responsible for the delay in prosecuting the appeal, having failed to seek certified copies of proceedings and judgment in a timely manner and not demonstrating adequate effort to obtain them. The court held that the appellants acted without due diligence and could not shift blame to the lower court or the respondent. The court further held that it has jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution even if the appeal has not been admitted or directions taken, especially where the delay is attributable to the appellants and amounts to an abuse of the court process. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal in the interest...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • The respondent is awarded costs of the appeal.