[2019] KEHC 5537 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 5537 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant had failed to comply with the order to deposit the decretal sum and to file and serve the record of appeal within the prescribed timelines. The absence of the appellant's advocates, despite being served with the hearing date, further demonstrated a lack of interest in prosecuting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 5537 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Medula Academy; Respondent: Jackline Atieno Otieno Daniel Omondi Okello (suing as the legal representatives of the estate of Dominic Juma Okello (Deceased))
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 29 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Stay of Execution, Non Compliance With Court Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Stay of Execution Non Compliance With Court Orders

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Medula Academy

Appellant

Jackline Atieno Otieno Daniel Omondi Okello (suing as the legal representatives of the estate of Dominic Juma Okello (Deceased))

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the appellant complied with the court's order to deposit the decretal sum and file the record of appeal within the stipulated time.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-compliance and inaction by the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant had failed to comply with the order to deposit the decretal sum and to file and serve the record of appeal within the prescribed timelines. The absence of the appellant's advocates, despite being served with the hearing date, further demonstrated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, as the appellant had not taken any steps to advance the matter or comply with court directives.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • No orders as to costs.