[2017] KEHC 7851 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 7851 (KLR)

The court held that the application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution was premature and misconceived because the appeal had not yet been admitted for hearing and no directions had been given as required by Order 42 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court emphasized that only after directions are...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 7851 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: John Nyakondo; Appellant: James Nyakondo; Respondent: James O. Orogo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 23 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the appellants; appellants ordered to list appeal for directions within 21 days or appeal stands dismissed
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Admission, Directions in Appeals, Abuse of Court Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeal Admission Directions in Appeals Abuse of Court Process

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Nyakondo

Appellant

James Nyakondo

Appellant

James O. Orogo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution before directions have been given under Order 42 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the application for dismissal was premature and an abuse of the court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution was premature and misconceived because the appeal had not yet been admitted for hearing and no directions had been given as required by Order 42 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court emphasized that only after directions are given and the requisite time has lapsed can the registrar, not a party, move for dismissal. The applicant's approach was therefore an abuse of the court process. However, the court acknowledged the applicant's frustration due to the appellants' delay and ordered the appellants to list the appeal for directions within 21 days, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the appellants; appellants ordered to list appeal for directions within 21 days or appeal stands dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 24th August 2016 is dismissed with costs to the appellants.
  • The appellants are ordered to list the appeal for directions within 21 days from the date of this ruling, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed forthwith.