[2018] KEHC 3737 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 3737 (KLR)

The court found that although the appeal had been pending for ten years without prosecution, the strict requirements of Order 42 Rule 35 for dismissal had not been met because no directions had been given and the matter had not been properly listed for hearing or dismissal. The registrar's omission to list the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 3737 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mbaku Ngunga; Applicant: Mutunga Maluki; Respondent: Sila Mumo Muli
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitui
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 10 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
LN Mutende
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Admission, Directions in Appeals, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeal Admission Directions in Appeals 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mbaku Ngunga

Applicant

Mutunga Maluki

Applicant

Sila Mumo Muli

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 under Order 42 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the appellant/respondent justified dismissal of the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether procedural omissions by the court registry affect the appellant's obligations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the appeal had been pending for ten years without prosecution, the strict requirements of Order 42 Rule 35 for dismissal had not been met because no directions had been given and the matter had not been properly listed for hearing or dismissal. The registrar's omission to list the matter for directions within the required time contributed to the delay. However, the appellant/respondent was also found to have been dilatory, only filing the record of appeal after the instant application was filed. The court therefore declined to dismiss the appeal but directed the appellant/respondent to fix a date for directions within seven days, failing which the deputy...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution is dismissed.
  • The respondent/appellant is directed to fix a date for giving directions within 7 days from the date hereof.