[2006] KEHC 1491 (KLR)
The court found that although the appellants had delayed in prosecuting the appeal, they had taken some steps by filing the memorandum of appeal and an application for directions. This demonstrated a renewed intention to proceed with the appeal. The court exercised its discretion not to dismiss the appeal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1491 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Gabriel Wanyonyi; Appellant: Charles Wafula Barasa; Appellant: Kennedy Juma Wanyonyi; Respondent: Hudson N. Walera
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 108 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Conditional extension granted; appeal not dismissed at this stage.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Record of Appeal, Directions Application
- 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
Gabriel Wanyonyi
Appellant
Charles Wafula Barasa
Appellant
Kennedy Juma Wanyonyi
Appellant
Hudson N. Walera
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to failure to prepare the record of appeal and seek directions.
- 2 Whether the filing of a memorandum of appeal and an application for directions constitutes sufficient action to save the appeal from dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the appellants had delayed in prosecuting the appeal, they had taken some steps by filing the memorandum of appeal and an application for directions. This demonstrated a renewed intention to proceed with the appeal. The court exercised its discretion not to dismiss the appeal immediately but instead ordered the appellants to process the appeal for hearing within 12 months, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed with costs to the respondent. This approach balanced the need to avoid undue delay with the appellants' right to be heard, while also warning that further inaction would result in dismissal.
Court Disposition
Conditional extension granted; appeal not dismissed at this stage.
Orders
- The appellant shall process the appeal for hearing within 12 months.
- If the appellant fails to process the appeal within 12 months, the appeal shall be deemed dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
Civil Appeal 108 of 2000
(Arising from Original Webuye RM CC. No.87 of 1995)
1GABRIEL WANYONYI
2CHARLES WAFULA BARASA
3 KENNEDY JUMA WANYONYI ..............................................................................APPELLANTS
VS
HUDSON N. WALERA...................................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
By a letter dated 15th July 2005, M/S Bulimo & Co. Advocates applied that the appeal be placed before the Judge for dismissal under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules (Cap 21) Laws of Kenya. The applicant cited two grounds:
i) Since the appeal was admitted on 24th February 2003, the appellants have never prepared the record of appeal.
ii) That the appellants have never made any application for directions.
Acting upon the said letter, the High court Registry, on 13th October 2006, listed the appeal for dismissal.
When the parties appeared before me, Mr. Wekesa for the respondent urged me that the appeal be dismissed on the grounds cited hereinabove.
Mr. Inganga, for the appellant, urged me to save the appeal since the memorandum of appeal has already been filed.
I have on my own, perused the court file and found as a fact that the memorandum of appeal was filed on 25th January, 2006. In addition thereto, there is an application by way of chamber summons dated 9th November 2005, by the appellant, seeking that direction be taken which has not been heard.
In the light of the foregoing, I take the position that the appellant has at least woken up from the deep slumber.
In the circumstances, the only order that commends itself to me is to put the appellant on his toes. Accordingly, I order that the appellant do process the appeal for hearing within 12 months, failing which this appeal be deemed as dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Dated at Bungoma this 21st day of February 2006.
N.R.O. OMBIJA
JUDGE
Wekesa for Respondent
N/A for Appellant.