[2005] KEHC 2114 (KLR)
The court held that the application was fatally defective because it was brought under the wrong provisions of the law and by the wrong procedure. Specifically, the application sought dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution but relied on provisions applicable to suits, not appeals, and was made by Notice of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 2114 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Bayusuf Brothers; Appellant: Abdi Mohammed Musa; Respondent: Mathew Mureithi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 20 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Procedural Irregularity, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Bayusuf Brothers
Appellant
Abdi Mohammed Musa
Appellant
Mathew Mureithi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution was brought under the correct legal procedure.
- 2 Whether the use of Notice of Motion instead of Summons rendered the application incompetent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application was fatally defective because it was brought under the wrong provisions of the law and by the wrong procedure. Specifically, the application sought dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution but relied on provisions applicable to suits, not appeals, and was made by Notice of Motion instead of Summons as required by Order XLI rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court emphasized that procedural rules serve specific purposes and must be strictly followed. As a result, the application was found to be incompetent and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET Civil Appeal 20 of 1998
BAYUSUF BROTHERS & ANOTHER …………………….……..... APPELLANTS -VERSUS
MATHEW MUREITHI …………………………………………..…...RESPONDENT
RULING
Before me is an application by way of Notice of Motion dated 11th April 2003 brought by Messrs. Gimose and Company Advocates on behalf of the applicants Messrs. Bayusuf Brothers and Abdi Mohammed Musa. It is purported to have been brought under Order XVI and 5B and Order 2(1) Civil Procedure Rules, as well as section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap.21). It seeks for two orders –
1. That the appeal filed herein in this matter be dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. That costs be provided for.
The application has grounds of the face of the Notice of Motion and is supported by the affidavit of Charles G. Gimiose advocate sworn on 23rd April 2003. Though counsel for the respondent Messrs. A. G. N. Kamau and Company Advocates were served with a hearing notice on 14th April 2005, they did not attend court. Therefore the application proceeded for hearing exparte.
In my view this application was brought under the wrong procedure. It was brought under provisions of the law that relate to dismissal of suits for want of prosecution, and not for dismissal of appeals for want of prosecution.
The provisions of the law for applications for dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution are under Order XL1 rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Such an application has to be made by Summons and not by way of Notice of Motion, as was done in this case.
Rules of procedure are meant to serve specific purposes, and they must be followed. This application was brought under the wrong procedure and is therefore incompetent and must be dismissed.
For the above reasons, I dismiss the application. As the respondent did not attend court, I make no order for costs.
Dated and delivered at Eldoret this 19th day of July 2005.
George Dulu
Ag. Judge
In the Presence of: No appearance for parties