[2010] KEHC 1995 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 1995 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant had taken no steps to prosecute the appeal for over two years since filing the memorandum of appeal, despite a consent order requiring the record of appeal to be filed within ninety days. The appellant's inaction and lack of explanation for the delay prejudiced the respondent, who...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KEHC 1995 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kindy Modern Bakery; Respondent: Agesa Kadenge Abdalla
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 8 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Directions and Possible Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application allowed with conditions
Judges
DO Ohungo
Legal Topics
Appeal Records Filing, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Directions in Appeals
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeal Records Filing Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Directions in Appeals

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kindy Modern Bakery

Appellant

Agesa Kadenge Abdalla

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Directions and Possible Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should be compelled to file and prepare the record of appeal within a specified period.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay in filing the record of appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant had taken no steps to prosecute the appeal for over two years since filing the memorandum of appeal, despite a consent order requiring the record of appeal to be filed within ninety days. The appellant's inaction and lack of explanation for the delay prejudiced the respondent, who was unable to realize the judgment in the lower court. The court held that the interests of justice required compelling the appellant to file the record of appeal within a specified period, failing which the respondent would be at liberty to apply for dismissal of the appeal. The court also awarded costs of the application to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application allowed with conditions

Orders

  • Appellant to prepare and file the record of appeal within ten (10) days from the date of the ruling.
  • The matter to be listed for directions within seven (7) days from the date of filing the record of appeal.