[2023] KECA 1367 (KLR)

[2023] KECA 1367 (KLR)

The court found that neither party had filed written submissions and the respondent had not responded to the application. The applicant failed to prosecute the application, leading the court to conclude that the applicant had lost interest in the matter. Consequently, the application was dismissed for want of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KECA 1367 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Richard Mapesa Matuli; Respondent: Adam Ambani Mulanda
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E093 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of prosecution.
Judges
HA Omondi
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Stay of Execution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Stay of Execution

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

Richard Mapesa Matuli

Applicant

Adam Ambani Mulanda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to file a notice of appeal and appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the annexed memorandum of appeal should be deemed properly on record and admitted for hearing.
  3. 3 Whether there should be a stay of execution of the ruling delivered on 30th November 2021 pending hearing and determination of the application and intended appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that neither party had filed written submissions and the respondent had not responded to the application. The applicant failed to prosecute the application, leading the court to conclude that the applicant had lost interest in the matter. Consequently, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule 58(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. No orders were made as to costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of prosecution.

Orders

  • The application dated 1st August, 2023 is dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule 58(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  • No orders as to costs.