[2018] KEHC 2031 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 2031 (KLR)

The court found that the appellants had not taken the necessary steps to prosecute the appeal after filing the memorandum of appeal, as required by Order 42 Rules 11-13 of the Civil Procedure Rules. However, the court held that dismissal for want of prosecution under Rule 35 is premature unless directions under Rule...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 2031 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Samuel Mbugua Nganga; Appellant: David Gachui Maina; Respondent: Alice Wangu Maina
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Naivasha
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 1 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed with conditions
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Procedure, Order 42 Rules, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeal Procedure Order 42 Rules Delay in Prosecution

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Mbugua Nganga

Appellant

David Gachui Maina

Appellant

Alice Wangu Maina

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 inaction by the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the application for dismissal is premature given the procedural requirements under Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants had not taken the necessary steps to prosecute the appeal after filing the memorandum of appeal, as required by Order 42 Rules 11-13 of the Civil Procedure Rules. However, the court held that dismissal for want of prosecution under Rule 35 is premature unless directions under Rule 13 have been given, which had not occurred in this case due to the unavailability of lower court proceedings. As such, the application to dismiss the appeal was dismissed. Nonetheless, to balance the interests of justice and ensure the appellants actively pursue the appeal, the court ordered the appellants to pay 50% of the decretal sum to the respondent within thirty days,...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with conditions

Orders

  • The application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution is dismissed.
  • The appellants shall pay 50% of the decretal sum to the respondent within thirty (30) days from the date of the ruling.