[2014] KEHC 8266 (KLR)
The court found that the appellants had taken all reasonable steps to move the appeal forward, including making several written requests to the lower court for proceedings and judgment necessary to prepare the record of appeal. The delay in prosecuting the appeal was entirely attributable to the lower court's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 8266 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Bustrack Limited; Appellant: Kenya Bus Services Limited; Respondent: Muthiani Kiilu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 104 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal of Appeal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Procedure, 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
Bustrack Limited
Appellant
Kenya Bus Services Limited
Appellant
Muthiani Kiilu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal of Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 42, rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
- 2 Whether the appellants are to blame for the delay in setting down the appeal for hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellants had taken all reasonable steps to move the appeal forward, including making several written requests to the lower court for proceedings and judgment necessary to prepare the record of appeal. The delay in prosecuting the appeal was entirely attributable to the lower court's failure to provide the required documents and to forward its original record to the High Court. As such, the appellants could not be blamed for the delay, and it would be unjust to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution in these circumstances.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
CIVIL APPEAL NO 104 OF 2009
BUSTRACK LIMITED
KENYA BUS SERVICES LIMITED......................APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MUTHIANI KIILU........................…….……….......…..RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The Respondent in this appeal has applied by notice of motion dated 8th August 2013 for dismissal of the Appellant’s appeal for want of prosecution. Though not stated, it is clear from the grounds for the application on the face thereof and the supporting affidavit that the application is brought under Order 42, rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (the Rules). That subrule states -
“If, within one year after the service of the memorandum of appeal, the appeal shall not have been set down for hearing, the registrar shall on notice to the parties list the appeal before a judge in chamber for dismissal.”
I see nothing wrong with a respondent applying under this subrule.
2. The supporting affidavit is sworn by the Respondent’s advocate, Mercy Nduta Mwangi. She deponed, inter alia, that the memorandum of appeal was filed on 6th March 2009 and served upon her firm on 2nd April 2009; that the Appellant has never caused the appeal to be listed before a judge for directions; and that despite passage of about five years the Appellant has never set down the appeal for hearing.
3. The Respondent has opposed the application by replying affidavit filed on 26th June 2014. The same is sworn by the Appellant’s advocate, Lawrence Kimondo. Paragraph 5 of that affidavit lists and exhibits some seven letters addressed to the lower court requesting various documents to enable preparation of the record of appeal. Those letters span the period 6th February 2009 to 12th July 2012. The present application was filed on 2nd October 2013. It is further deponed that the requested documents (which include proceedings and judgment) have never been supplied.
5. There is also exhibited in the replying affidavit a letter dated 10th of August 2010 addressed by this court to the lower court requesting for the lower court’s original record together with certified copies of proceedings, judgment and decree, inter alia. This court’s record shows that the lower court has never complied.
6. It appears to me that the Appellants cannot be blamed for the delay in disposal of this appeal. They have done all that they possibly could to move the appeal forward. The delay has been caused entirely by the lower court by its failure to forward to the Appellants copies of proceedings and judgment and other relevant documents to enable them to prepare the record of appeal. The lower court has also failed to forward to this court its original record together with certified copies of the proceedings, judgment and other documents to enable this court to give directions as to hearing of the appeal.
7. In the circumstances I will refuse the application at hand. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014
H P G WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2014