SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Wanda v Njimbi & 2 others (Civil Appeal 252 of 2017) [2023] KECA 378 (KLR) (31 March 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KECA 378 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
378
Citation
[2023] KECA 378 (KLR)
Decided
31 March 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the dismissal of a suit for want of prosecutionCoramHannah Okwengo, K. M'Inoti, F. Sichahe
Holding

The trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for reinstatement of the suit that was dismissed for want of prosecution. The appellant's remedy lay in an appeal against the order of Onguto, J dated March 11, 2015.

Facts

On November 9, 2007, the appellant filed a suit against the respondents for trespass to Plot No B6-328 Kayole, Nairobi. The suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on March 11, 2015. The appellant applied for reinstatement of the suit on June 19, 2019, but the application was dismissed.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for reinstatement of the suit that was dismissed for want of prosecution.
  2. Whether the appellant's application for reinstatement was timely and properly made.

Reasoning

The Civil Procedure Rules did not provide for an application to reinstate a suit that had been dismissed for want of prosecution. The trial court's ruling was based on the incorrect interpretation of the rules.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with no orders on costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Legal Notice No 22 of 2020
Cases cited (2)
  • Erick Kimingichi Wapang’ana t/a Magharibi Machineries Ltd. v. Equity Bank Ltd
  • Order 17, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case