[2021] KEHC 1077 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 1077 (KLR)

The High Court found that the appellant had persistently failed to comply with clear and repeated court orders requiring the deposit of the decretal sum in a joint interest account, and had not prosecuted the appeal for over 12 months. The court noted that the appellant did not serve the memorandum of appeal or file the record of appeal, and that the appeal was essentially an attempt to delay compliance with lawful orders. The court further held that the appeal, being against the exercise of discretion in refusing a review, had little chance of success, especially in light of the appellant's flagrant disregard for court orders. The court concluded that the interests of justice required...

Citation
[2021] KEHC 1077 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: John Okello Siangani; Respondent: German Assisted Settlement Programme (GASP) alias German Technical Co-operation (GTZ) alias German International Co-operation (GIZ)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 November 2021
Case Number
Civil Appeal 65 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling and Judgment on Application to Strike Out Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Judges
BA Mitullah
Legal Topics
Appeal Striking Out, Non Compliance With Court Orders, Review of Magistrates Decision, Execution of Decree, Administration of Estates
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeal Striking Out Non Compliance With Court Orders Review of Magistrates Decision Execution of Decree Administration of Estates

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Okello Siangani

Appellant

German Assisted Settlement Programme (GASP) alias German Technical Co-operation (GTZ) alias German International Co-operation (GIZ)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling and Judgment on Application to Strike Out Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's failure to comply with court orders warrants striking out the memorandum of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal against the refusal to review the magistrate's decision is meritorious.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant properly prosecuted the appeal in accordance with procedural requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the appellant had persistently failed to comply with clear and repeated court orders requiring the deposit of the decretal sum in a joint interest account, and had not prosecuted the appeal for over 12 months. The court noted that the appellant did not serve the memorandum of appeal or file the record of appeal, and that the appeal was essentially an attempt to delay compliance with lawful orders. The court further held that the appeal, being against the exercise of discretion in refusing a review, had little chance of success, especially in light of the appellant's flagrant disregard for court orders. The court concluded that the interests of justice required...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • The appellant is directed to comply forthwith with the orders of the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court in Mumias made on 17th October 2013 and 28th May 2014.