[2012] KEHC 3120 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant failed to comply with the order to file the Record of Appeal within 60 days, which was a condition for the stay of execution. Despite the appellant's explanation of illness and financial difficulty, no action was taken to file the Record even after service of the application to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 3120 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joash Wafula; Respondent: Edward Simiyu Lusanya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 100 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution and Discharge of Stay
- Outcome
- Stay of execution discharged; application to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution declined; costs to abide the appeal.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Stay of Execution, Customary Law Dowry, Record of Appeal Filing, Appellate Conditions
- 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
Joash Wafula
Appellant
Edward Simiyu Lusanya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution and Discharge of Stay
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to failure to file the Record of Appeal within the stipulated time.
- 2 Whether the stay of execution previously granted should be discharged for non-compliance with the court's order.
- 3 Whether the appellant's reasons for delay constitute sufficient cause to excuse non-compliance.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to comply with the order to file the Record of Appeal within 60 days, which was a condition for the stay of execution. Despite the appellant's explanation of illness and financial difficulty, no action was taken to file the Record even after service of the application to dismiss. The court held that this did not demonstrate diligence. However, the court declined to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, noting that there was no evidence that the respondent would be unable to repay the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. The stay of execution was discharged due to non-compliance, but the appeal itself was not dismissed. Costs were ordered to...
Court Disposition
Stay of execution discharged; application to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution declined; costs to abide the appeal.
Orders
- The order of stay of execution is discharged.
- The request to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution is declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT BUNGOMA
Civil Appeal 100 of 2010
JOASH WAFULA...........................................................................APPELLANT
~VRS~
EDWARD SIMIYU LUSANYA.......................................................RESPONDENT
(Appeal arising from Senior Resident Magistrate R. O. Oigara in Sirisia court in civil case no.60 of 2009)
RULING
This appeal was filed on 27/9/2010 by the Applicant against whom the Respondent successfully sued for the payment of dowry under Luhya customary law. He had been sued for marrying the Respondent’s daughter and failing to pay dowry. He had been sued jointly with his father Robert Simiyu Mukhwana. They had denied the fact of marriage and liability to pay dowry. The value of dowry plus costs and interest was Ksh.158,895/=. The Respondent was executing when the Applicant filed the appeal and along with it an application for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. On 22/11/2010 the parties appeared before Justice Onyancha who ordered stay for six months. He admitted the appeal and asked that the Appellant files the Record of Appeal within 60 days.
On 8/7/2011 the Respondent filed the present motion seeking to have the appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. His grounds were that the Appellant had not filed a Record of Appeal within 60 days as had been directed; that the appeal had no chance of success; and that the failure to abide by the court order was intended to delay the course of justice. The Applicant filed a replying affidavit to say that he had not complied because he had been attacked by thugs following which he had been unwell and unable to raise money to instruct his advocates to file the Record of Appeal. He swore that he was now ready and willing to file the Record.
The record shows that when the application was filed it was served on 7/9/2011. The Applicant may have been attacked by thieves and consequently been unable to finance the filing of the Record of appeal, but it is clear that since the application was filed no action has been taken to file the Record. The present application was heard about six months after it was served. That is not the conduct of a diligent appellant.
It is notable that the order to file the Record within 60 months was a condition of stay. It was not honoured and there is no request to extend time. The order of stay shall be discharged but the request to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution is declined. I have made the orders because it was not deponed in the affidavit to support the application for stay that the Respondent was wanting in means or was incapable of paying the decretal sum if the appeal ultimately succeeds. I ask that costs do abide the appeal.
Dated, signed and delivered at Bungoma this 11th day of July 2012.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE