[2008] KEHC 446 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 446 (KLR)

The court found that although the appellant had delayed in prosecuting the appeal, the Civil Procedure Rules provide a specific mechanism for dismissal of appeals for want of prosecution. Under Order XLI Rule 31(2), it is the Registrar who is empowered to list the appeal for dismissal if no action is taken within...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 446 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Steven Mutisya T/A Stero Printers & General Suppliers; Respondent: School Equipment Centre Ltd.
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 152 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
GG Okwengu
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Inherent Jurisdiction, Appeal Procedure, Directions in Appeals
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Inherent Jurisdiction Appeal Procedure Directions in Appeals

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Mutisya T/A Stero Printers & General Suppliers

Appellant

School Equipment Centre Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed or struck out for want of prosecution under Section 3A and Section 63e of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction where specific provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules apply.
  3. 3 Whether the application for dismissal is premature in the absence of directions under Order XLI Rule 8B.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the appellant had delayed in prosecuting the appeal, the Civil Procedure Rules provide a specific mechanism for dismissal of appeals for want of prosecution. Under Order XLI Rule 31(2), it is the Registrar who is empowered to list the appeal for dismissal if no action is taken within one year after service of the memorandum of appeal. Since these specific provisions exist, the court held that it should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The application by the respondent to dismiss the appeal was therefore premature and unjustified. The court dismissed the motion and directed the appellant to file and serve a...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant shall file and serve a record of appeal within 21 days from the date hereof.