[2022] KEELC 13543 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 13543 (KLR)

The court found that the appellants failed to comply with its order to file written submissions in support of their application for stay of execution. The court emphasized that filing submissions is now a settled practice and essential for expeditious disposal of matters. The appellants' failure to act, despite...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 13543 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Philemon Ngeno; Appellant: Esther Chumo; Appellant: Bernard Ngeno; Respondent: Picoty Chepkoech Ngeno; Respondent: Ngeno Ronald Kibet
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kericho
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E002 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
MC Oundo
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Failure to File Submissions
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Failure to File Submissions

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philemon Ngeno

Appellant

Esther Chumo

Appellant

Bernard Ngeno

Appellant

Picoty Chepkoech Ngeno

Respondent

Ngeno Ronald Kibet

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' application for stay of execution should be dismissed for failure to file written submissions as ordered by the court.
  2. 2 Whether failure to prosecute an application by not filing submissions amounts to lack of interest and warrants dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants failed to comply with its order to file written submissions in support of their application for stay of execution. The court emphasized that filing submissions is now a settled practice and essential for expeditious disposal of matters. The appellants' failure to act, despite being granted an extension, demonstrated inertia, inordinate delay, and lack of seriousness in prosecuting their application. Citing established case law, the court held that such failure amounts to want of prosecution and justified dismissal of the application. The main motion was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The main motion is dismissed with costs to the respondents.