[2004] KEHC 2595 (KLR)
The court found that the appellants had failed to provide a sufficient or relevant explanation for the inordinate delay of nearly nine years in prosecuting the appeal. The purported reason of obtaining letters of administration was not shown to be relevant to the prosecution of the appeal, nor was the delay in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 2595 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Danson Njiru Jacob; Appellant: Albert Munyi J. Kabarathi; Respondent: Joseph Nthiga Kagau; Respondent: Gaturi Farmers Co-op Society Ltd alias Nembure Farmers Co-op Society Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 63 of 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Review and Reinstatement After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Appeal, Inordinate Delay, Exercise of Discretion
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Danson Njiru Jacob
Appellant
Albert Munyi J. Kabarathi
Appellant
Joseph Nthiga Kagau
Respondent
Gaturi Farmers Co-op Society Ltd alias Nembure Farmers Co-op Society Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Review and Reinstatement After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be reinstated after dismissal for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the appeal was sufficiently explained to warrant exercise of the court's discretion in favour of the applicants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellants had failed to provide a sufficient or relevant explanation for the inordinate delay of nearly nine years in prosecuting the appeal. The purported reason of obtaining letters of administration was not shown to be relevant to the prosecution of the appeal, nor was the delay in obtaining them explained. The court emphasized the principle that litigation must come to an end and that respondents cannot be expected to wait indefinitely. As a result, the court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellants and dismissed the application for reinstatement of the appeal.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application for review and reinstatement is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
7 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO 63 OF 1995 DANSON NJIRU JACOB ALBERT MUNYI J. KABARATHI ……………………. APPELLANTS VERSUS JOSEPH NTHIGA KAGAU ) GATURI FARMERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD ) …... RESPONDENTS ALIAS NEMBURE FARMERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD ) RULING This is an application for the review and setting aside of the order dismissing this appeal for want of prosecution, and for the reinstatement of the appeal.
The memorandum of appeal in this case was filed on March 9, 1995. The Appellants took absolutely no steps after that to prosecute this appeal, and so on March 7, 2002, the same was dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 41 Rule 31 (2) and 1 A of the Civil Procedure Rules.
This application was filed on February 16, 2004 – almost nine years after the memorandum of appeal was first filed. This is a long period of time. And the Appellants’ explanation for this inordinate delay? That they were in the process of obtaining letters of administration of the estate of Jacob Kabarathi …” The Appellants do not explain the relevance of those letters to this appeal, nor why it took so long to obtain. There simply isn’t enough information before this court to exercise the discretion in favour of the Applicants. They are guilty of inordinate delay, which is not sufficiently explained. It is an important principle of justice that litigation must come to an end. The Respondents cannot be expected to wait eternally for their fate to be decided in a case in which the Appellants have gone to slumber.
Accordingly, I am unable to allow this application and the same is dismissed with cost to the Respondents.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 17th day of May, 2004.
ALNASHIR VISRAM JUDGE