[2022] KEHC 26999 (KLR)
The court found that the Appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal or the application for stay of execution since filing. The Appellant and his advocate repeatedly failed to appear in court, demonstrating a lack of diligence and interest in pursuing the matter. The court held that allowing the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 26999 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: George Ndungu Gitu t/a Aqua Gardens; Respondent: Claire Wambui Kinuthia; Respondent: Victor Wahome Kinuthia; Respondent: Dennis Ngari Kinuthia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E064 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondents
- Judges
- DO Chepkwony
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Stay of Execution, Jurisdiction of High Court, Appeals From Tribunals
- 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
George Ndungu Gitu t/a Aqua Gardens
Appellant
Claire Wambui Kinuthia
Respondent
Victor Wahome Kinuthia
Respondent
Dennis Ngari Kinuthia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal and application should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
- 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal in light of Section 15 of Cap 301.
- 3 Whether the Appellant is guilty of laches in prosecuting the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal or the application for stay of execution since filing. The Appellant and his advocate repeatedly failed to appear in court, demonstrating a lack of diligence and interest in pursuing the matter. The court held that allowing the appeal to remain pending would prejudice the Respondents and contravene the principles of expeditious justice under Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution and the oxygen rule in the Civil Procedure Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution and lack of diligence by the Appellant.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs awarded to the Respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CIVIL DIVISION
HCCA NO.E064 OF 2022
GEORGE NDUNGU GITU T/A AQUA GARDENS…..........APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
1. CLAIRE WAMBUI KINUTHIA
2. VICTOR WAHOME KINUTHIA
3. DENNIS NGARI KINUTHIA.............................................RESPONDENTS
R U L I N G
1. On the 15th February, 2022, simultaneous with the Memorandum of Appeal instituting the instant appeal, the Appellant filed a Notice of Motion application dated the 14th February, 2022,substantially seeking orders of stay of execution against the orders/ruling of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal BPRT Case No.63 of 2022 pending the determination of the appeal.
2. The grounds adduced in support of the application and as reiterated in the affidavit sworn in support thereof are that, the tribunal erroneously dismissed an application dated 8th November, 2021 on grounds of failure of service and want of prosecution. The Appellant thinks the dismissal was unjust and pleads that it ought to be set aside lest he be evicted from the lease premises.
3. In opposition to both the application and the entire appeal, the Respondents jointly filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on the ground that this court lacks the jurisdiction to handle the matter by virtue of Section 15 of Cap 301 of the Laws of Kenya.
4. However, neither the appeal nor the application dated 14th February, 2022 have ever been prosecuted since they were presented to court. The record shows that the application was first placed before court on 15th February, 2022 under Certificate of Urgency and directions were given for inter-parties hearing on 10th March, 2022. On 10th March, 2022, the Respondents showed up through their advocate while the Appellant and/or his advocate were absent and no explanation whatsoever was given. The Matter was then adjourned to 16th March, 2022 and on that date none of the parties showed up in court and the matter was placed aside to be mention on 17th March, 2022. When the court reconvened on 17th March, 2022, the Appellant and his advocates again failed to show up in court and the Respondents’ counsel applied for the matter to be dismissed for want of prosecution and lack of jurisdiction.
5. I have also read through the pleadings and annexures in the application and it is clear that the germane of this appeal is to reinstate an application dated 17th January, 2020 which was dismissed for among other reasons, the want of prosecution. Now, since the appeal was presented to court, the Appellant has never showed up in court and most of the instances demonstrate a pattern of failure or the lack of readiness by the Appellant/Applicant to prosecute his case. This behavior portrayed by the Plaintiff is commensurate to that of a sluggish and lethargic litigant and it has been persistent since the filing of the reference before the tribunal.
6. An appeal cannot be left to remain hanging on the necks of the Respondents without any effort being undertaken to prosecute it. There is no doubt that the Respondents herein continue to be prejudiced by the magnitude of delay that has been exhibited by the Appellant herein. Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 enjoins the courts to administer justice without delay while the objective of the oxygen rule under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act is to ensure the just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable disposal of cases.
7. The Appellant should have at least shown up once after filing the Certificate of Urgency on the 15th March, 2022. But since then, he seems unbothered by the events of the Appeal or better still, the question is, he filed the appeal for the sake of filing it? Therefore, my view is that the Appellant is guilty of laches as he has been less than diligent in having the appeal and the application prosecuted.
8. Accordingly, I find no good reason why this appeal should continue pending in this court and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
Orders accordingly.
RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, SIGNED AND DATED IN NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022.
D. O. CHEPKWONY
JUDGE
In the presence of:
No appearance for Applicant
Mr. Ndungo Gachiri counsel for Respondent
Court Assistant - Adika