REPUBLIC OF KENYA
Before this court is a Notice of Motion application dated 27 th May 2026 seeking for reinstatement of the appeal herein after a similar application was dismissed for want of prosecution. The application was premised on the grounds on its face and supporting affidavit attached to the application. When the matter came up for directions Mr. Ouko Advocate indicated he had responded to the application vide Replying Affidavit sworn on 7 th July 2026 filed concurrently with submissions. The Applicant’s Counsel indicated that he was relying on the supporting affidavit filed with the application.
This court has considered the application and find that the Appellant was only jolted to action when this 2022 appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is apparent that the Appellant had completely lost interest in the appeal and thus the want for prosecution. The fact that even after being given an opportunity to plead his case and convince the court to grant the discretionary orders he failed to file submissions leading to the dismissal of the 1 st application goes to show how indolent the Appellant has been in prosecuting the appeal. In both applications the Appellant has not shown that he is prepared to file the submissions by annexing even a draft.
This court finds no reason to reinstate an appeal that has been pending in court for over four years without any action being taken to prosecute it. The application is therefore dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MIGORI THIS 17 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
Before this court is a Notice of Motion application dated 27 th May 2026 seeking for reinstatement of the appeal herein after a similar application was dismissed for want of prosecution. The application was premised on the grounds on its face and supporting affidavit attached to the application. When the matter came up for directions Mr. Ouko Advocate indicated he had responded to the application vide Replying Affidavit sworn on 7 th July 2026 filed concurrently with submissions. The Applicant’s Counsel indicated that he was relying on the supporting affidavit filed with the application.
This court has considered the application and find that the Appellant was only jolted to action when this 2022 appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is apparent that the Appellant had completely lost interest in the appeal and thus the want for prosecution. The fact that even after being given an opportunity to plead his case and convince the court to grant the discretionary orders he failed to file submissions leading to the dismissal of the 1 st application goes to show how indolent the Appellant has been in prosecuting the appeal. In both applications the Appellant has not shown that he is prepared to file the submissions by annexing even a draft.
This court finds no reason to reinstate an appeal that has been pending in court for over four years without any action being taken to prosecute it. The application is therefore dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MIGORI THIS 17 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026