[2024] KEHC 7235 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 7235 (KLR)

The court held that the application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution was premature because directions on the hearing of the appeal had not been issued as required under Order 42 Rule 35(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The relevant timelines for dismissal had not started running, and neither the three...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 7235 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Lilian Wanjiku Kanyuga; Respondent: Kanyuga Charles; Respondent: Alice Atieno Auka
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kiambu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E364 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DO Chepkwony
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Timelines, Order 42 Rule 35, Directions on Appeal, Record of Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeal Timelines Order 42 Rule 35 Directions on Appeal Record of Appeal

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

Lilian Wanjiku Kanyuga

Appellant

Kanyuga Charles

Respondent

Alice Atieno Auka

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 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the application to dismiss the appeal is premature where directions have not been issued.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution was premature because directions on the hearing of the appeal had not been issued as required under Order 42 Rule 35(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The relevant timelines for dismissal had not started running, and neither the three months after directions nor the one year after service of the Memorandum of Appeal had lapsed. Therefore, the statutory procedure for dismissal had not been satisfied, and the application could not be allowed. The court dismissed the application and directed the appellant to file and serve a Record of Appeal within fourteen days.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion application dated 15th February, 2024 is dismissed with costs.
  • The Appellant shall file and serve a Record of Appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date of the ruling.