[2024] KEHC 14523 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 14523 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal for over a year since its filing, despite being granted a stay of execution and being served with the application and notices to attend court. The court determined that this demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 14523 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Peter Kibui Thairu; Respondent: Sammy Wainaina; Respondent: Hilary Kemei; Respondent: Joseph Ogola Ezra
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kiambu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E202 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
DO Chepkwony
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Procedure, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Appeal Procedure 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Kibui Thairu

Appellant

Sammy Wainaina

Respondent

Hilary Kemei

Respondent

Joseph Ogola Ezra

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 inordinate delay by the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal for over a year since its filing, despite being granted a stay of execution and being served with the application and notices to attend court. The court determined that this demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal and that it would be just and prudent to dismiss the appeal to prevent further clogging of the court system and to allow the respondent to enjoy the fruits of the judgment. The court relied on Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which empowers the court to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution, and exercised its discretion accordingly.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.