[2018] KEHC 6158 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 6158 (KLR)

The court held that after the expiration of 30 days from 6th September, 2016, the appeal stood dismissed by operation of the court's prior order due to the appellant's failure to file the decree as directed. Since the appeal was no longer in existence at the time the application to vacate or discharge the dismissal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 6158 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Rosemary Njeri Muiruri; Respondent: Margaret Njeri Kimani
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 2 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Vacate or Discharge Dismissal Order
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Appeal Dismissal, Reinstatement of Appeal, Stay of Execution, Non Compliance With Court Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeal Dismissal Reinstatement of Appeal Stay of Execution Non Compliance With Court Orders

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

Rosemary Njeri Muiruri

Appellant

Margaret Njeri Kimani

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Vacate or Discharge Dismissal Order

  1. 1 Whether the court can reinstate an appeal that stood dismissed after non-compliance with a court order.
  2. 2 Whether the application to vacate or discharge the dismissal order is sustainable where the appeal is no longer in existence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that after the expiration of 30 days from 6th September, 2016, the appeal stood dismissed by operation of the court's prior order due to the appellant's failure to file the decree as directed. Since the appeal was no longer in existence at the time the application to vacate or discharge the dismissal order was filed, the court lacked jurisdiction to revisit or reinstate the proceedings. The application was not one for review, and there was no basis to reinstate orders that did not exist. The court emphasized that any further recourse available to the appellant lay in seeking legal advice from counsel, but the present application was unsustainable and had to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 27th March, 2017 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.