Byogero Mary v Kabi Arnold and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 22 of 2024)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The High Court dismissed the applicant's miscellaneous application under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules for non-prosecution. The applicant had abandoned the application and failed to appear on multiple hearing dates. The court noted that the property in question had already been sold, creating third party interests, and it was unclear whether the application was the appropriate remedy. Costs were awarded to the second respondent.
Outcome
Application dismissed for non-prosecution
Facts
The applicant filed a miscellaneous application which she subsequently abandoned on 14 May 2025. On 24 September 2025, neither the applicant nor her counsel appeared in court. The court noted from the affidavit that the property which was the subject of the application had already been sold, creating third party interests. The applicant failed to prosecute the matter despite multiple opportunities to appear.
Issues
- Whether the application should be dismissed for non-prosecution where the applicant and counsel failed to appear on multiple hearing dates
Orders
- Application dismissed under Order 9, rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Costs awarded to the 2nd Respondent.
Legislation cited (1)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.22
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.