[2003] KEHC 752 (KLR)

[2003] KEHC 752 (KLR)

The court found that both the applicant and its previous counsel failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal for four years after filing. There was no evidence that the applicant followed up with its advocate or took any interest in the progress of the appeal. The court held that mistakes of counsel are not an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] KEHC 752 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Bains Construction Co. Ltd.; Respondent: John Mizare Ogowe
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
13 March 2003
Case Number
? 79 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Stay of Execution and Reinstatement of Appeal After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Appeal, Stay of Execution, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Mistake of Counsel
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Reinstatement of Appeal Stay of Execution Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Mistake of Counsel

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bains Construction Co. Ltd.

Applicant

John Mizare Ogowe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Stay of Execution and Reinstatement of Appeal After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal dismissed for want of prosecution should be reinstated.
  2. 2 Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending determination of the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the mistakes of counsel justify reinstatement of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both the applicant and its previous counsel failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal for four years after filing. There was no evidence that the applicant followed up with its advocate or took any interest in the progress of the appeal. The court held that mistakes of counsel are not an absolute shield for a litigant who is also negligent or indifferent. The application for stay of execution was found to be misconceived since the appeal had already been dismissed for want of prosecution. The court exercised its discretion against the applicant, finding that there was inordinate delay in bringing the application and insufficient grounds for reinstatement....

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 5th February 2003 is dismissed with costs.