[2018] KEHC 1591 (KLR)
The court found that although the appellant's advocate failed to diligently follow up on the availability of typed proceedings and the filing of the record of appeal, the principle that the mistake of counsel should not be visited upon the client applied. The court noted that the only correspondence from the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 1591 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Bhachu Industries Limited; Respondent: Moses Kimeu Muia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 33 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal not dismissed; appellant granted opportunity to prosecute appeal.
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Record Filing, Advocate Mistake, Delay in Prosecution
- 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
Bhachu Industries Limited
Appellant
Moses Kimeu Muia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to failure to file the record of appeal.
- 2 Whether the mistake of the advocate in failing to follow up on proceedings should be visited upon the client.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the appellant's advocate failed to diligently follow up on the availability of typed proceedings and the filing of the record of appeal, the principle that the mistake of counsel should not be visited upon the client applied. The court noted that the only correspondence from the appellant's advocate was a single letter requesting proceedings, with no evidence of further follow-up. However, given the age of the appeal and the lack of progress, the court determined that dismissing the appeal would be unreasonable under the circumstances. Instead, the court ordered that the appeal be fixed for hearing within 15 days, emphasizing the need for expeditious...
Court Disposition
Appeal not dismissed; appellant granted opportunity to prosecute appeal.
Orders
- The appeal shall be fixed for hearing within 15 days from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2014
BHACHU INDUSTRIES LIMITED..............................APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
MOSES KIMEU MUIA...............................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This ruling relates to the notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. In response thereto, the appellant filed a replying affidavit sworn by its advocate, Kaminza Charles Zakayo. The deponent stated that the memorandum of appeal was filed on 14th February, 2014. Soon thereafter, the appellant through its advocate wrote to the Executive Officer of the lower court, requesting for certified copies of the proceedings and that further follow ups were undertaken but to no avail since it was indicated that the proceedings were not ready.
3. The deponent further averred that the appellant’s advocate was never informed as and when the proceedings were ready for collection and it is for this reason that the appellant failed to file the record of appeal and that such failure resulted solely from the lower court registry that failed to inform them of the availability of the proceedings.
4. This court has considered the averments made in the reply filed by the appellant. The issue really is, whether this court should grant the appellant the opportunity of proceeding with the appeal.
5. It is well noted that judgment in the suit (CMCC NO. 531 OF 2006) was delivered on 15th January, 2015 in favour of the respondent and the appellant had 30 days within which to appeal. It is equally noted that the firm of J. Maluki & Co. Advocates sought leave of the court to come on record for the appellant, which leave was granted on 14th February, 2014. The memorandum of appeal was timeously filed on 14th February, 2014.
6. The appellant is yet to file the record of appeal. According to the appellant, this was due to the fact that the typed proceedings had not been availed. This court has looked at the letter dated 25th March, 2014 annexed to the replying affidavit and confirmed that indeed, a request was made for the typed proceedings. The deponent argued that follow ups were done thereafter. However, there is no evidence to indicate that the matter was pursued beyond that. In fact, this court has observed that the abovementioned letter was the only correspondence made to the court regarding the proceedings.
7. The record shows that the lower court file comprising the typed proceedings was forwarded to this court on 10th March, 2015 and the forwarding letter copied to the appellant’s and respondent’s advocates. However, it is not clear whether the same was actually served upon the appellant. In turn, there seems to be no further related correspondence from the lower court to the appellant, thereby leading this court to suppose that the appellant was possibly unaware of the fact that the proceedings were typed.
8. The deponent, Kaminza Charles Zakayo,admitted that the failure to file the record of appeal was due to a genuine mistake on the part of the advocate. In this court’s opinion, the appellant ought to have been persistent in following up on the progress of the appeal with its advocate. Be that as it may, regard is had, to the well-known principle that the mistake of an advocate should not be visited upon the client and since this is a 2014 appeal, it was ultimately the advocate’s duty to proactively follow up on the proceedings, file the record of appeal and have the same expeditiously prosecuted. Under the circumstances, this court finds that it would be unreasonable to punish the client for the lack of conscientiousness of its advocates.
9. Having established the above, this court deems it worthwhile to restate that this is a fairly old appeal derived from an old suit. The appeal has been pending in court for close to five (5) years now with barely any progress.
It is hereby ordered that the Appeal be fixed for hearing within 15 days from the date of this ruling.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at NAIROBI this 20th day of December, 2018.
L. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
……………………………. for the Appellant
……………………………. for the Respondent