[2021] KEELC 43 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 43 (KLR)

The court found that while the delay in prosecuting the appeal was prolonged (one year and five months), the respondents provided a reasonable explanation, primarily the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and related travel restrictions, which affected their ability to file submissions. The applicant did not challenge...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 43 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kiwacom Enterprises Limited; Appellant: Jacinta Wachu Kimandi; Appellant: Dickson Kimandi Mwarabua; Respondent: Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 3 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeals Process, Delay in Prosecution, Right to Be Heard
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeals Process Delay in Prosecution Right to Be Heard

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiwacom Enterprises Limited

Appellant

Jacinta Wachu Kimandi

Appellant

Dickson Kimandi Mwarabua

Appellant

Co-operative Bank of Kenya 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 due to prolonged delay by the appellants in taking steps to prosecute the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the appeal was inordinate and inexcusable, or justified by the circumstances, including the Covid-19 pandemic.
  3. 3 Whether justice can still be done to the parties despite the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the delay in prosecuting the appeal was prolonged (one year and five months), the respondents provided a reasonable explanation, primarily the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and related travel restrictions, which affected their ability to file submissions. The applicant did not challenge these explanations or demonstrate that justice could not be done despite the delay. The court emphasized that the right to be heard is fundamental and that dismissing the appeal at this stage would cause greater injustice to the respondents than any prejudice suffered by the applicant. The court exercised its discretion to allow the appeal to proceed, finding that justice could...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution is dismissed.
  • The applicant is granted 30 days to respond to the respondents' submissions.