[2015] KECA 24 (KLR)

[2015] KECA 24 (KLR)

The Court found that the appellants and their counsel failed to appear for the hearing despite being served with notice. The appeal had been listed for hearing several times without prosecution by the appellants. The Court concluded that the appellants had lost interest in the appeal. In accordance with Rule 102 of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KECA 24 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: James Obondi Oliech; Appellant: Tom Oriawo; Appellant: John Osambo; Appellant: Ayub Ochieng Owl; Appellant: Thomas Ogada; Appellant: Syprin Ooko Ochuka; Appellant: Samwel Okuta Abonga; Appellant: Carlus Aganga; Appellant: Henry Juombo; Respondent: Marikus Ong’idi Odhare
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 77 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Non Prosecution, Appeal Procedure, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Non Prosecution Appeal Procedure Costs Award

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Obondi Oliech

Appellant

Tom Oriawo

Appellant

John Osambo

Appellant

Ayub Ochieng Owl

Appellant

Thomas Ogada

Appellant

Syprin Ooko Ochuka

Appellant

Samwel Okuta Abonga

Appellant

Carlus Aganga

Appellant

Henry Juombo

Appellant

Marikus Ong’idi Odhare

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the appellants' failure to appear and prosecute the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the appellants and their counsel failed to appear for the hearing despite being served with notice. The appeal had been listed for hearing several times without prosecution by the appellants. The Court concluded that the appellants had lost interest in the appeal. In accordance with Rule 102 of the Court of Appeal Rules, and upon the respondent's application, the Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal with costs for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • The appellants shall pay the costs of the appeal to the respondent.