[2018] KEELC 3229 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the lack of prosecution of the appeal. Notice of the intended dismissal was properly served, and neither the appellant nor his advocate provided reasons to justify the continuation of the appeal. In accordance with Order 42 Rule...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3229 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Martin Kinoti Mbae; Respondent: Ireri M’Raria & Another
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 112 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeals Process, Land Disputes
- 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
Martin Kinoti Mbae
Appellant
Ireri M’Raria & Another
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the lack of prosecution of the appeal. Notice of the intended dismissal was properly served, and neither the appellant nor his advocate provided reasons to justify the continuation of the appeal. In accordance with Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. The absence of the appellant's advocate and the lack of any substantive justification for the delay were determinative.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- No costs are awarded to any of the parties.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CIVIL APPEAL CASE NO. 112 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU CIVIL APPEAL NO. 36 of 2014
MARTIN KINOTI MBAE.................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
IRERI M’RARIA & ANOTHER................................RESPONDENTS
RULING
1. Notice was properly given to the parties that this appeal would be listed for dismissal before me on 24th May, 2018.
2. The appellant, Martin Kinoti Mbae, told the court that he did not know why his advocate, Mr. Kioga, had not prosecuted the appeal. He also told the court that Mr. Kioga had been served with the apposite notice and he did not know why he was not in court.
3. I find that no satisfactory explanation has been proffered as to why this appeal should NOT be dismissed in terms of Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
4. Consequently, this appeal has been dismissed in my chambers and the ruling thereof has been delivered in open Court.
5. No costs are awarded to any of the parties.
6. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 24th day of May, 2018
in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Martin Kinoti Mbae – Appellant
P. M. NJOROGE,
JUDGE.