[2005] KEHC 2185 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 2185 (KLR)

The court held that the application for dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution was premature because directions had not been taken as required by Order XLI Rule 31(i) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The rule stipulates that only after directions are given and three months have passed without the appellant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 2185 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Teresia Njoki Njeru; Respondent: Trufosa Njeru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 8 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
I Lenaola
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Directions, Order Xli Rule 31, Record of Appeal, Adjournment, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeal Directions Order Xli Rule 31 Record of Appeal Adjournment Costs Award

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

Teresia Njoki Njeru

Appellant

Trufosa Njeru

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether the appeal can be dismissed for want of prosecution before directions have been taken under Order XLI Rule 31(i).
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's application for dismissal is premature in the absence of directions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution was premature because directions had not been taken as required by Order XLI Rule 31(i) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The rule stipulates that only after directions are given and three months have passed without the appellant setting the appeal down for hearing can the respondent apply for dismissal. Since no directions had been taken in this case, the respondent's application could not be entertained. The court therefore dismissed the application with costs to the appellant.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 19.10.2004 is dismissed with costs.