[2019] KEHC 11159 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 11159 (KLR)

The court found that although there was a delay of over two years in prosecuting the appeal, the respondent had provided some explanation by exhibiting letters requesting certified copies of proceedings and judgment from the lower court, which were not responded to. However, the respondent did not demonstrate any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 11159 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Moblin Limited; Respondent: Grace Atieno Sakwa; Respondent: Cliff Okete Swaka
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 150 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal and Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
BT Jaden
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Appeal Procedure, Release of Decretal Sum
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Appeal Procedure Release of Decretal Sum

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moblin Limited

Applicant

Grace Atieno Sakwa

Respondent

Cliff Okete Swaka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal and Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay.
  2. 2 Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out.
  3. 3 Whether the decretal sum deposited should be released to the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there was a delay of over two years in prosecuting the appeal, the respondent had provided some explanation by exhibiting letters requesting certified copies of proceedings and judgment from the lower court, which were not responded to. However, the respondent did not demonstrate any further steps taken to follow up on the proceedings. The court noted that directions under Section 79B of the Civil Procedure Act had not been given and the record of appeal had not been compiled or filed. Given that the appeal was on both liability and quantum, the court held it was not appropriate to release the decretal sum at this stage. The court exercised its discretion to...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 24th May, 2017 is dismissed with costs in cause.
  • The record of appeal to be compiled and served and the appeal to be fixed for directions within 90 days from the date herein.