[2019] KEHC 1241 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 1241 (KLR)

Although there was delay and laxity on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the appeal and complying with court orders, the record of appeal had ultimately been filed. The court found that dismissing the appeal at this stage would not serve the interest of justice, especially since the respondent did not object...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 1241 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Raphael Mutuma Mwiti; Respondent: Florence Mukonyo Maingi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 239 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Timelines, Record of Appeal Filing, Court Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeal Timelines Record of Appeal Filing Court Discretion

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raphael Mutuma Mwiti

Appellant

Florence Mukonyo Maingi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal 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 appeal should be dismissed for being filed out of time without leave of the court.

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was delay and laxity on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the appeal and complying with court orders, the record of appeal had ultimately been filed. The court found that dismissing the appeal at this stage would not serve the interest of justice, especially since the respondent did not object to the late filing of the record of appeal. The application for dismissal was therefore denied, but the appellant was ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the application. The court directed that the lower court file be availed to facilitate the admission and hearing of the appeal on its merits.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 27th May, 2017 is dismissed.
  • The appellant shall pay the costs occasioned by this application.