[2008] KEHC 1692 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 1692 (KLR)

The court found that although the appellant had delayed in prosecuting the appeal, the respondent had not taken the available procedural step of fixing the appeal for hearing and serving notice on the appellant before seeking dismissal. The law provides that the respondent may fix the matter for hearing if the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 1692 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Njoka Tanners Ltd; Respondent: Catherine Kagwiria
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 24 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
J Karanja
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Fixing Hearing Dates
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Fixing Hearing Dates

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Njoka Tanners Ltd

Appellant

Catherine Kagwiria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was obligated to fix the appeal for hearing before seeking dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the appellant had delayed in prosecuting the appeal, the respondent had not taken the available procedural step of fixing the appeal for hearing and serving notice on the appellant before seeking dismissal. The law provides that the respondent may fix the matter for hearing if the appellant fails to do so. Since the appellant expressed continued interest in pursuing the appeal, the court exercised its discretion to give the appellant a final opportunity to fix the appeal for hearing within a specified period, failing which the appeal would be dismissed. The application for dismissal was therefore denied, with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 9/4/2008 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • The appellant is to fix the appeal for hearing within 10 days from the date hereof, failing which the court will dismiss the appeal.