[2019] KEHC 9681 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 9681 (KLR)

The court found that although there had been a delay of about six months since the last action on record, the appeal had not yet been admitted for hearing nor had directions been given. The court held that the application to strike out the appeal was premature because the prescribed procedural steps for advancing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 9681 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Madhu Paper Kenya Limited; Respondent: Ronald Ntereba Rangoli
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 13 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed with directions for expeditious prosecution of appeal
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Stay of Execution, Appeal Procedure, Directions on Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Stay of Execution Appeal Procedure Directions on Appeal

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madhu Paper Kenya Limited

Appellant

Ronald Ntereba Rangoli

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Appeal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be struck out for want of prosecution due to delay by the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the order of stay of execution should be discharged and the decretal sum released to the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the application to strike out the appeal is premature given the procedural steps not yet taken.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there had been a delay of about six months since the last action on record, the appeal had not yet been admitted for hearing nor had directions been given. The court held that the application to strike out the appeal was premature because the prescribed procedural steps for advancing the appeal had not been taken by either the appellant or the Registrar. The court emphasized that striking out an appeal is a drastic remedy that should only be used sparingly, as it denies a party access to justice before all avenues are exhausted. The court further noted that the appellant had complied with the conditional stay order by depositing the decretal sum, indicating...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with directions for expeditious prosecution of appeal

Orders

  • The application to strike out the appeal is dismissed.
  • The appeal shall be prosecuted within 90 days from the date of this ruling, failing which it shall stand dismissed without recourse to the court.