[2020] KEHC 6410 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 6410 (KLR)

The court found that while the appellant's advocate did not provide credible evidence to fully explain the delay in prosecuting the appeal, the circumstances—specifically, the change of advocates and lack of immediate access to the client file—made the explanation plausible. The court also noted that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 6410 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Monicah Wangui Mwaura; Respondent: Joseph Ruto Cheruiyot; Respondent: DL Festive Limited; Respondent: Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 67 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal not dismissed; appellant granted opportunity to prosecute appeal.
Judges
LM Njuguna
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Representation of Parties
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Representation of Parties

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

Monicah Wangui Mwaura

Appellant

Joseph Ruto Cheruiyot

Respondent

DL Festive Limited

Respondent

Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to delay by the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's advocate is properly on record and whether this affects the prosecution of the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in prosecuting the appeal has been sufficiently explained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the appellant's advocate did not provide credible evidence to fully explain the delay in prosecuting the appeal, the circumstances—specifically, the change of advocates and lack of immediate access to the client file—made the explanation plausible. The court also noted that the respondents' advocate had acquiesced to the current advocate's participation and that any issue of representation could be remedied. In the interest of justice, and given the absence of evidence that the parties were informed of the availability of the lower court file, the court exercised its discretion not to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and granted the appellant a further...

Court Disposition

Appeal not dismissed; appellant granted opportunity to prosecute appeal.

Orders

  • The appeal is spared from dismissal for want of prosecution.
  • The appellant is granted a chance to prosecute her appeal.