[2019] KEHC 870 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 870 (KLR)

The court found that the appeal was not ripe for dismissal under Order 42, Rule 35(1) because directions had not been given and the appeal had not been admitted for hearing. There was no evidence that the Registrar had given notice to the parties or that the respondent had approached the Registrar to take action...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 870 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: John Kariuki Maina; Appellant: John Kibe Kihungi; Respondent: Thomas Ooko Wanyango
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 407 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal of Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Admission, Record of Appeal Filing, Directions in Appeals
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeal Admission Record of Appeal Filing Directions in Appeals

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

John Kariuki Maina

Appellant

John Kibe Kihungi

Appellant

Thomas Ooko Wanyango

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 42, Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants are to blame for the delay in prosecuting the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appeal was not ripe for dismissal under Order 42, Rule 35(1) because directions had not been given and the appeal had not been admitted for hearing. There was no evidence that the Registrar had given notice to the parties or that the respondent had approached the Registrar to take action under Order 42, Rule 35(2). The appellants had requested certified copies of proceedings and judgment from the trial court, and there was no indication that these had been supplied. The delay in prosecuting the appeal was therefore not attributable to the appellants. As such, the application for dismissal for want of prosecution was dismissed, and directions were given to...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Deputy Registrar is directed to liaise with the trial court to supply the appellants with certified copies of the proceedings and judgment.
  • The appellants shall compile, file, and serve their record of appeal within 14 days from the date of receipt of the aforementioned documents.