[2019] KEELC 4614 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent, having obtained a stay of execution, failed to take any steps to prosecute his application or intended appeal and did not provide any reasons for the delay. This inaction was prejudicial to the applicant, who was prevented from enjoying the fruits of his judgment. The court held...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 4614 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Samwel Naimodu Leteipa; Respondent: Joseph Lekishon Kaelo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 2 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application allowed; respondent's application dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the applicant
- Judges
- MN Kullow
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Stay of Execution, Delay in Prosecution
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Samwel Naimodu Leteipa
Appellant
Joseph Lekishon Kaelo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's application dated 29th October, 2014 should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the respondent's failure to prosecute the application after obtaining a stay of execution is prejudicial to the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent, having obtained a stay of execution, failed to take any steps to prosecute his application or intended appeal and did not provide any reasons for the delay. This inaction was prejudicial to the applicant, who was prevented from enjoying the fruits of his judgment. The court held that such conduct warranted dismissal of the respondent's application for want of prosecution, and accordingly allowed the applicant's motion to dismiss with costs.
Court Disposition
application allowed; respondent's application dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the applicant
Orders
- The respondent's application dated 29th October, 2014 is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs awarded to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAROK
ELC MISC APPL. NO. 2 OF 2018
FORMERLY NAKURU MISC CIVIL APPL. NO. 238 OF 2014
SAMWEL NAIMODU LETEIPA.............................APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
-VERSUS-
JOSEPH LEKISHON KAELO.................................RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
RULING
The Application before me is the Notice of Motion dated 3rd June, 2016 seeking an order dismissing the Respondent’s Application dated 29th October, 2014 for want of prosecution. The Application was based on the grounds that the Respondent was granted a stay of execution on 29th October, 2014 and he has failed to take any steps to prosecute the Application and the Applicant has suffered prejudice as a result of the Respondent’s failure.
In support of the Application the Applicant had filed an affidavit in support of the same and averred that the Respondent has often been granted a stay of execution and he has never taken any steps to prosecute the Application.
I have read the application before me and the submissions filed by the Applicant. From the record, it is clear that the Respondent having obtained a stay of execution, has not undertaken any steps to have his intended appeal and application prosecuted. No reasons have been adduced by him.
I find that the Respondent’s actions are prejudicial to the Applicant. The Applicant can’t be stopped from enjoying the fruits of his labour.
In view of the above I find that the Application dated 3rd June, 2016 is merited and I allow the same and thus dismiss the Respondent’s Application dated 29th October, 2014 for want of prosecution with costs to the Applicants.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED in open court at NAROK on this 14th day of February, 2019.
Mohamed N. Kullow
Judge
14/2/19
In the presence of:
CA:Chuma
Mr Lel for the Plaintiff/Applicant
Respondent in person
Mohamed N. Kullow
Judge
14/2/19