[2017] KEHC 8096 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 8096 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate good cause for reinstatement of the appeal. Despite claiming lack of service of the notice to show cause, the court was satisfied that proper notice had been given, as the judge who dismissed the appeal was satisfied with service. The appellant and his...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 8096 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Salim Hamisi Mwanganga; Respondent: Matano Mohamed Kaka; Respondent: Umi K. Mohamed
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 117 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
AW Mwangi
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Appeal, Service of Notice, Good Cause Requirement
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Reinstatement of Appeal Service of Notice Good Cause Requirement

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

Salim Hamisi Mwanganga

Appellant

Matano Mohamed Kaka

Respondent

Umi K. Mohamed

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellant has shown good cause for the reinstatement of the dismissed appeal.
  2. 2 Whether proper notice was served on the appellant or his advocate prior to dismissal for want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate good cause for reinstatement of the appeal. Despite claiming lack of service of the notice to show cause, the court was satisfied that proper notice had been given, as the judge who dismissed the appeal was satisfied with service. The appellant and his advocates were inactive for three years, making no effort to obtain the proceedings or judgment necessary for the appeal. The court held that such prolonged inaction and lack of diligence did not warrant the exercise of discretion to reinstate the appeal. The respondents were entitled to the benefit of the lower court's judgment, and the application to set aside the dismissal was...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 26th October, 2015 is dismissed with costs to the respondents/defendants.