[2011] KEHC 2079 (KLR)
The court found that the record showed the file from the Wanguru court had been received by the High Court on 17th December 2008 and the appeal was admitted for hearing on 22nd April 2009. Despite this, the appellants had taken no steps to set down the appeal for hearing for over two years. The court held that this...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2079 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: James Migwi; Appellant: Jane Wangechi; Respondent: Susan Wanjiku Mwangi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 26 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution and to Lift Stay
- Outcome
- application allowed; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution; stay order lifted
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Delay in Prosecution
- 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
James Migwi
Appellant
Jane Wangechi
Appellant
Susan Wanjiku Mwangi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution and to Lift Stay
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the appellants.
- 2 Whether the unconditional stay of execution granted by the subordinate court should be lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the record showed the file from the Wanguru court had been received by the High Court on 17th December 2008 and the appeal was admitted for hearing on 22nd April 2009. Despite this, the appellants had taken no steps to set down the appeal for hearing for over two years. The court held that this demonstrated a lack of interest or diligence in prosecuting the appeal. The delay was found to be inordinate and inexcusable, justifying dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. Consequently, the stay of execution previously granted was lifted.
Court Disposition
application allowed; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution; stay order lifted
Orders
- The application is allowed with costs to the applicant.
- The appeal filed by the respondents is dismissed with costs for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2008
JAMES MIGWI………..….….......................……1ST APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
JANE WANGECHI………….......................……..2ND APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
SUSAN WANJIKU MWANGI…….........................…. RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
R U L I N G
This motion was brought under Order 42 rule 35 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution, or that the court lifts the unconditional stay of execution that was ordered by the subordinate court on 20th May 2008. The ground is that since the Memorandum of Appeal was served on the Applicant on 13th March 2008, which is over 39 months ago, the appeal has not yet been set down for hearing and yet the Respondents are enjoying the stay.
The suit in the subordinate court was filed by the Applicant on 10th January 2005 seeking a mandatory injunction to compel the Respondents to deliver to her 112 bags of pishori rice or its market value. It was alleged that the Respondents had on diverse dates between July and October 2003 agreed to supply the rice worth KShs.134,400/= which they had received. The court heard the case and on 15th February 2007 rendered a judgment ordering the Respondents to supply the rice or refund the KShs.134,400/= with interest at court rates from 15th December 2004 until payment in full. Subsequent to that, on 20th May 2008 stay was granted until the appellate court had issued any further orders. It is this order of stay that the Applicant is complaining about. She was represented during this application by Mr. Kiama.
The application was opposed by the Respondents who were represented by Mr. Kariithi. Their contention was that the file from Wanguru court had not been received by this court to enable the appeal to be admitted or rejected. This is the reason why they have not moved to process the appeal for hearing.
I have checked the record and it shows that this court received the file from Wanguru court on 17th December 2008 and that the appeal was admitted to hearing on 22nd of April 2009. The fact that the Respondent are unaware of these crucial developments is clear demonstration that they lack interest in their appeal. In the alternative, they have not shown any diligence in pursuing the appeal. It was not at their instance that directions under Section 79 B of the Civil Procedure Act were given. Over 2 years later no action has been taken to set down the appeal for hearing. My determination is that there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay in the prosecution of this appeal.
The result is that this application succeeds with costs. The appeal filed by the Respondents against the Applicant is dismissed with costs for want of prosecution. For the avoidance of doubt, the stay order granted by the subordinate court on 20th May 2008 is hereby lifted.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE