[2025] KEHC 9232 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9232 (KLR)

The court found that the appellants failed to comply with directions to file and serve written submissions and repeatedly failed to attend court despite being served with mention notices. The affidavits of service contradicted the appellants' claim that they lost track of the matter due to a court transfer. Their...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9232 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Bashir Sharif Ibrahim; Appellant: Kennedy Macharia; Respondent: Josphat Muchiri
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyandarua
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 June 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal 51 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent
Judges
KW Kiarie
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Procedure, Written Submissions, Court Directions
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeal Procedure Written Submissions Court Directions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bashir Sharif Ibrahim

Appellant

Kennedy Macharia

Appellant

Josphat Muchiri

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the appellants' failure to file submissions and attend court as directed.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were properly served with mention notices and court directions.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent/applicant is entitled to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants failed to comply with directions to file and serve written submissions and repeatedly failed to attend court despite being served with mention notices. The affidavits of service contradicted the appellants' claim that they lost track of the matter due to a court transfer. Their response to the application, filed shortly before the ruling, demonstrated a lack of seriousness in prosecuting the appeal. The court held that the respondent/applicant had established sufficient grounds for dismissal under Order 42 Rule 35(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The appeal was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent

Orders

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