[2018] KEHC 3983 (KLR)
The court found that the application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution was premature because directions had not yet been given in the appeal as required by Order 42 rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The record showed that the appeal was admitted for hearing and notice was issued to the appellant to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 3983 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Family Bank Limited; Appellant: Antotech Auctioneers; Respondent: Cyrus Ireri Daniel
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 12 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Judges
- NA Matheka
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Admission, Directions in Appeals
- 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
Family Bank Limited
Appellant
Antotech Auctioneers
Appellant
Cyrus Ireri Daniel
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 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether directions had been given in the appeal to warrant dismissal for want of prosecution.
- 3 Whether the application for dismissal was premature.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution was premature because directions had not yet been given in the appeal as required by Order 42 rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The record showed that the appeal was admitted for hearing and notice was issued to the appellant to comply with procedural requirements, but directions had not been taken. Without directions, the respondent could not properly seek dismissal for want of prosecution. The court therefore dismissed the application on the ground of prematurity, without considering the merits of the delay or compliance with any stay orders issued by the subordinate court.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application dated 11th May, 2018 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
HCCA NO.12 OF 2017
FAMILY BANK LIMITED................1ST APPELLANT
ANTOTECH AUCTIONEERS.........2ND APPELLANT
VERSUS
CYRUS IRERI DANIEL.......................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The application before me is the chamber summons dated 11th May, 2018 brought under Order 42 rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rule and Section 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.
It seeks orders that the appeal herein be dismissed for want of prosecution in that the appellant has not taken any step to prosecute it one year down the line. It is supported by the affidavit of Cyrus Ireri the respondent/applicant.
Counsel for the appellants Mwangi Wahome filed a replying affidavit in opposing the application on 2 main grounds: -
i. That the Lower Court proceedings were only ready by February 2018. The decree was not ready by then.
ii. Directions have not been taken in this appeal as required by the rules.
Ms. Ndegwa argued the application from the applicants, and Mr. Muhoro for the respondents.
The applicant relied on 2 authorities: -
i. National Bank of Kenya -Vs- Alfred Owino Ballah [2017] eKLR
ii. Jurgen Paul Flach -Vs- Jane Akoth Flach [2014] eKLR
The order 42 rule 35 provides:-
(1) Unless within 3 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, even to set the appeal for hearing or to apply by summons for its dismissal for want of prosecution.
The record shows that the appeal was admitted for hearing on 22nd May, 2018 when the notice was issued to the appellant to comply with order 45 rule 12.
In view of the above the application was premature as directions have not been given in the matter to warrant the application for dismissal and in any event the appeal was admitted from hearing when this application was already pending before this court for hearing.
On that ground alone the application fails.
The applicant has alluded to orders issued by the subordinate Court for stay on condition that the decretal sum was to be deposited in the joint names of counsel and that respondents had not complied. I can only state here that if indeed those orders were issued and the respondents have not complied, there must be consequences that were to follow the default.
In the upshot the application before me is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Dated, delivered and signed this at Nyeri this 21st day of September 2018.
Mumbua T. Matheka
Judge
In the presence of:
CA albert
N/A for parties or counsel
Date taken in court