[2017] KEHC 8479 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 8479 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent had not taken any steps to prosecute the application dated 23rd June 2014, and had conceded disinterest in pursuing it. The failure to withdraw the application was due to inadvertence by the respondent’s advocate’s clerk. Given the lack of prosecution and the respondent’s...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 8479 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Simon Maina Muhoro; Respondent: Edward Mungai; Respondent: Paul Mburu Muhoho; Respondent: John Muigai Njora
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Application 512 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application allowed with costs to the applicant
Judges
BT Jaden
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Stay of Execution Leave to Appeal Out of Time

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

Simon Maina Muhoro

Appellant

Edward Mungai

Respondent

Paul Mburu Muhoho

Respondent

John Muigai Njora

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the application dated 23rd June 2014 should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had not taken any steps to prosecute the application dated 23rd June 2014, and had conceded disinterest in pursuing it. The failure to withdraw the application was due to inadvertence by the respondent’s advocate’s clerk. Given the lack of prosecution and the respondent’s concession, the court held it was fair and just to allow the application for dismissal for want of prosecution and to award costs to the applicant.

Court Disposition

application allowed with costs to the applicant

Orders

  • The application dated 16th August 2016 is allowed.
  • The application dated 23rd June 2014 is dismissed for want of prosecution.