[2016] KECA 229 (KLR)

[2016] KECA 229 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's representative was properly served with the hearing notice both by registered post and telephone notification. Despite this, the applicant failed to attend court to prosecute the application for extension of time to file an appeal. The respondent opposed the application and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KECA 229 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Union of Employees of Voluntary and Charitable Organizations (KUEVACO); Respondent: St. John’s Community Centre – Pumwani
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 316 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed for want of prosecution
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Out of Time, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Out of Time Dismissal for Want of 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Union of Employees of Voluntary and Charitable Organizations (KUEVACO)

Applicant

St. John’s Community Centre – Pumwani

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was properly served with the hearing notice for the application.
  2. 2 Whether the application for extension of time to file an appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's representative was properly served with the hearing notice both by registered post and telephone notification. Despite this, the applicant failed to attend court to prosecute the application for extension of time to file an appeal. The respondent opposed the application and requested its dismissal for want of prosecution. The court, satisfied with the service and the applicant's non-attendance, exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for want of prosecution and awarded costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The application dated 24th December, 2015 is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • The respondent is awarded costs of the application.