[2017] KEELC 566 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 566 (KLR)

The court found that the Appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute his appeal for over twelve years, both before the Appeals Committee and after the matter was transferred to the Environment and Land Court. There was no explanation for the delay, nor any evidence that the Appellant had sought to progress...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 566 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Japheth Otieno Akumu; Respondent: Ezekiel Onyango Akumu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 1 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. Each party to bear own costs.
Legal Topics
Appeal Dismissal, Want of Prosecution, Land Disputes Tribunal, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Appeal Dismissal Want of Prosecution Land Disputes Tribunal 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Japheth Otieno Akumu

Appellant

Ezekiel Onyango Akumu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent has made a reasonable case for the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 What orders should be issued regarding the appeal and costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute his appeal for over twelve years, both before the Appeals Committee and after the matter was transferred to the Environment and Land Court. There was no explanation for the delay, nor any evidence that the Appellant had sought to progress the appeal after learning of its transfer. The appeal was filed out of time without leave, and the Appellant did not demonstrate any preparedness to prosecute the matter. The court held that the Respondent's application for dismissal for want of prosecution was merited under Order 42 Rule 35(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. Each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • The Appellant’s appeal in respect of Land Disputes Tribunal Case No. 374 of 1997, filed with the Nyanza Provincial Appeals Committee on 22nd July 2002 and transferred to this court, is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Each party shall bear his own costs in this appeal both before this court and the Appeals Committee.