[2014] KEHC 1664 (KLR)
The court found that no directions had been taken in the appeal as required under Order 42 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Since the procedural step of giving directions had not occurred, the application for dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution was premature. Consequently, the court struck out the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 1664 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Commercial Transporters Co. Limited; Respondent: Evans Kibe Ndung’u
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 681 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application struck out
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Stay of Execution, 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
Commercial Transporters Co. Limited
Appellant
Evans Kibe Ndung’u
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 42 Rule 35(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the stay of execution should be vacated and the decretal sum released to the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that no directions had been taken in the appeal as required under Order 42 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Since the procedural step of giving directions had not occurred, the application for dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution was premature. Consequently, the court struck out the application, holding that the respondent could not invoke the provisions for dismissal before the necessary procedural milestones had been met.
Court Disposition
application struck out
Orders
- The application dated 4th July, 2013 is struck out.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 681 OF 2007
COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTERS CO. LIMITED…………… APPELLANT
VERSUS
EVANS KIBE NDUNG’U……………...................................... RESPONDENT
RULING
Before me is a Notice of Motion dated 4th July, 2013. The application is expressed to be brought under Order 42 Rule 35(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules,2010 and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) Laws of Kenya. The application essentially seeks orders:
That the appeal be dismissed with costs for want of prosecution and/or abuse of court process.
That the orders of stay of execution made on 29th August, 2007 be vacated and decretal sum deposited in court be forthwith released to the applicant.
The grounds for which the application is brought is set out in the face of the application and the supporting affidavit of Nzamba Kitonga. These were that the appeal arises from judgment of Nairobi CMCC No. 2310 of 2006 delivered on 13th July, 2007. The appellant subsequently obtained 29th August, 2007 obtained an order for stay of execution and filed this appeal on 7th August, 2007. That since then, the appellant has taken no steps to prosecute its appeal.
The application was opposed vide the replying affidavit of Evans N. Mussilli. He contended that there was a delay in drawing the decree and certificate of costs in the lower court and moving the lower court file to the High Court; that negotiations have been on going in the matter; that the appeal is meritorious and if dismissed the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss.
When this application came up for hearing, there was no appearance for the appellant. Mr. Mutemi, Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the grounds of the application and urged that the application be allowed.
I have considered the affidavits on record. The law governing dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution is enunciated in Order 42 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules which stipulates:
“35. (1) Unless within three months after the giving of directions under rule 13 the appeal shall have been set down for hearing by the appellant, the respondent shall be at liberty either to set down the appeal for hearing or to apply by summons for its dismissal for want of prosecution.
(2) 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 chambers for dismissal.”
In the instant case no directions have been taken therefore the application is premature.
For the aforegoing reasons, the application is struck out with no orders as to costs.
Dated, Signed and delivered in open court this 12th day of November 2014.
J.K.SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
……………………………………………………………………………….……for the Appellant
…………………………………………………………………………..……..for the Respondent