[2018] KEHC 4829 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 4829 (KLR)

The court found that directions under Order 42 rule 13 had not been given in the appeal, and therefore the application for dismissal for want of prosecution was premature. The delay in filing the record of appeal was attributed to the unavailability of certified proceedings from the lower court, and the appellant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 4829 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd; Respondent: Kaburu Chamangoni Mwazi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 103 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Application to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution declined. Appellant granted 60 days to file record of appeal and fix for directions. No order as to costs.
Judges
AW Mwangi
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Procedure, Record of Appeal, Directions Under Order 42, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeal Procedure Record of Appeal Directions Under Order 42 Delay in Prosecution

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd

Appellant

Kaburu Chamangoni Mwazi

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(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant has made sufficient effort to obtain certified proceedings and file the record of appeal.
  3. 3 Whether directions have been given to trigger the respondent's right to seek dismissal for want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that directions under Order 42 rule 13 had not been given in the appeal, and therefore the application for dismissal for want of prosecution was premature. The delay in filing the record of appeal was attributed to the unavailability of certified proceedings from the lower court, and the appellant had made some effort to obtain them. The court declined to dismiss the appeal, instead granting the appellant 60 days to file the record of appeal and fix the matter for directions. No order as to costs was made, as the appellant had demonstrated some diligence.

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution declined. Appellant granted 60 days to file record of appeal and fix for directions. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution is declined.
  • The appellant is granted 60 days to file the record of appeal and fix the appeal for directions.