[2013] KEHC 5397 (KLR)
The court found that since the appellants, after filing their petition of appeal, took no further steps to prosecute the appeal, there was no basis to keep the file open. The absence of action by the appellants indicated abandonment or lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, the court exercised its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 5397 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: M’Muratha M’Aranguri; Appellant: Gedion Kinoti; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 40 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Closure of Appeal Due to Inactivity
- Outcome
- Appeal closed for want of prosecution.
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Dismissal, Criminal Procedure, Disturbance Offences
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
M’Muratha M’Aranguri
Appellant
Gedion Kinoti
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Closure of Appeal Due to Inactivity
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should proceed despite no steps being taken since filing.
- 2 Whether the file should be closed for want of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since the appellants, after filing their petition of appeal, took no further steps to prosecute the appeal, there was no basis to keep the file open. The absence of action by the appellants indicated abandonment or lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to close the file, effectively bringing the appellate process to an end for want of prosecution.
Court Disposition
Appeal closed for want of prosecution.
Orders
- The file is consequently closed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Meru
Civil Appeal 40 of 2010 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
800x600
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif";} </style> <![endif]
M’MURATHA M’ARANGURI………………………………… 1ST APPELLANT
GEDION KINOTI………………………………………………2ND APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………………………………………RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The Appellants were convicted for an offence of creating disturbance contrary to section 85(1) of the Penal Code by Chief Magistrate court Maua delivered on 26th January 2010.
They filed a petition of Appeal on 11th February 2010 through his advocate Mr. B.G. Kariuki. No further step was taken in the appeal. The file is consequently closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE.