[2013] KEHC 956 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 956 (KLR)

The court found that while there had been some delay by the appellant in prosecuting the appeal, the delay was not inordinate or inexcusable. The appellant could not fix the appeal for hearing before the record was admitted and directions were given, and the delay was explained by the late provision of certified...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 956 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Leaves (K) Limited; Respondent: Peter Ondimu Nyabwari
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 193 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed, appeal admitted
Judges
DA Onyancha
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Admission, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeal Admission 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leaves (K) Limited

Appellant

Peter Ondimu Nyabwari

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 delay by the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the appeal was justified by the appellant's explanation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while there had been some delay by the appellant in prosecuting the appeal, the delay was not inordinate or inexcusable. The appellant could not fix the appeal for hearing before the record was admitted and directions were given, and the delay was explained by the late provision of certified proceedings by the court. The court held that the application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution lacked merit. However, to prevent further delay, the court admitted the appeal and ordered that it be prosecuted within eight months, failing which it would stand dismissed automatically.

Court Disposition

application dismissed, appeal admitted

Orders

  • Application to dismiss for want of prosecution is dismissed with costs.
  • The appellant shall prosecute the appeal within eight (8) months or the appeal shall automatically stand dismissed.