[2020] KEELC 3132 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 3132 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant had not taken any steps to prosecute the appeal after vacating the premises and settling with the respondent. The appellant's failure to file the necessary documents and set the appeal down for hearing, coupled with the parties' mutual agreement and compromise, justified dismissal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 3132 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Juliet Kwamboka Ongwae t/a Kahawa Kulture; Respondent: Mocha Place Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 11 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeals Process, Vacant Possession, Compromise of Suit
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeals Process Vacant Possession Compromise of Suit

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juliet Kwamboka Ongwae t/a Kahawa Kulture

Appellant

Mocha Place Limited

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 under Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the matter has been compromised by the parties' conduct and settlement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant had not taken any steps to prosecute the appeal after vacating the premises and settling with the respondent. The appellant's failure to file the necessary documents and set the appeal down for hearing, coupled with the parties' mutual agreement and compromise, justified dismissal for want of prosecution under Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court emphasized that formal withdrawal of the appeal would have been the appropriate step to avoid such an application, but in its absence, the statutory mechanism for dismissal applied. The appeal was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution, with costs to the applicant.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • The costs of the application shall be borne by the Appellant.