[2024] KEHC 2854 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 2854 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to prosecute their application for leave to appeal out of time and stay of execution. Despite being given directions to serve the application and submissions, there was no evidence of service or further action. The prolonged inaction indicated lack of interest, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 2854 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Horizon Coach Company Ltd; Applicant: Basari Company Ltd; Respondent: Irene Munyoki & Lee Ngela Manoki (Suing as the Legal Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Munyoki - Deceased); Respondent: Kyalo Gregory; Respondent: Springs
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Makueni
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E051 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
TM Matheka
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Out of Time Stay of Execution Dismissal for Want of 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Horizon Coach Company Ltd

Applicant

Basari Company Ltd

Applicant

Irene Munyoki & Lee Ngela Manoki (Suing as the Legal Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Munyoki - Deceased)

Respondent

Kyalo Gregory

Respondent

Springs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the applicants demonstrated sufficient cause for leave to appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay of execution should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to prosecute their application for leave to appeal out of time and stay of execution. Despite being given directions to serve the application and submissions, there was no evidence of service or further action. The prolonged inaction indicated lack of interest, and the court concluded that the prayers sought had likely been overtaken by events. Consequently, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution and the file closed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • The file is closed.