[2014] KEHC 906 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent's application was unmerited because it was brought under the wrong procedural rule. The correct procedure for dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution is set out in Order 42 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides that such an application can only be invoked by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 906 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Grace Njeri Kamanu; Respondent: Rosemary Gathoni Chege
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 66 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Procedure, Court File Loss
- 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
Grace Njeri Kamanu
Appellant
Rosemary Gathoni Chege
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's application for dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution is merited under the applicable law.
- 2 Whether the correct procedural rule was invoked for dismissal of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent's application was unmerited because it was brought under the wrong procedural rule. The correct procedure for dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution is set out in Order 42 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides that such an application can only be invoked by the registrar after one year of inaction, not by a party under Order 17 Rule 2(3). Since the respondent did not follow the correct procedure, the application could not succeed. The court therefore dismissed the application, holding that the respondent's reliance on the wrong rule was fatal to the motion.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The respondent's application dated 19th August, 2013 is dismissed.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2009
GRACE NJERI KAMANU……………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
ROSEMARY GATHONI CHEGE……RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The respondent’s Notice of Motion dated 19th August, 2013 seeks to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. The motion is expressed to be brought under Order 17 Rule 2 (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules,2010 and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The motion is premised on the grounds on the face of the application and the supporting affidavit and further supporting affidavit of the respondent sworn on 19th August, 2013 and 27th June, 2014 respectively. She averred that the appellant has for more than one year since the filing of this appeal taken no steps to prosecute it.She averred that she instituted a suit against the appellant’s insurers and executed a decree thereby this appeal is meant to frustrate her realisation of the decree.
3. The application was opposed vide the replying affidavit of Jared Nchore Orare sworn on 21st May, 2014. He attributed the delay in prosecuting the appeal to loss of the trial court file (Gatundu RMCC No. 345 of 2007) following a fire that razed Gatundu Law Courts.
4. When this application came up for hearing on 5th November, 2014, Miss Chege, Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that no evidence was furnished to prove that Gatundu Law Courts burnt down; that there is no evidence that the appellant applied to reconstruct the court file and that since a declaratory suit against the appellant’s insurer was filed and insurer directed to settle the claim, there was no need for an appeal. Reliance was placed on the case of Hesbon Amata & Another v. David Maina Waithaka, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2009(UR). Mr. Amadi Learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated the averments in the replying affidavit and admitted that there was a declaratory suit which was settled but argued that the appellant should not be punished twice.
5. I have read and considered the depositions and the rival submissions. The issue that falls for this court’s determination is whether the application meets the conditions for granting an order for dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution. The applicable law is enunciated in Order 42 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules and not Order 17 Rule 2 (3) as expressed by the respondent.It provides:
“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.”
Considering the provisions in sub-rule 2, this application is unmerited since it can only be invoked by the registrar. The upshot is that the application is dismissed. Costs shall be in the cause.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court this 18thday of December, 2014.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
……………………………………………………………………………………………….for the Appellant
……………………………………………………………………………..……………for the Respondent