[2010] KEHC 873 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant had failed to prosecute the appeal for over four years since service of the memorandum of appeal in 2006. The appellant's explanation for the delay, namely the alleged delay in obtaining certified copies of proceedings and judgment, was unsupported by any evidence. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 873 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: John Kalanza; Respondent: Mwende Kinyali
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 84 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Maintenance Orders, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Award
- 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
John Kalanza
Appellant
Mwende Kinyali
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the appellant.
- 2 Whether the appellant has provided a credible explanation for the delay in prosecuting the appeal.
- 3 Whether the order of stay of execution should be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant had failed to prosecute the appeal for over four years since service of the memorandum of appeal in 2006. The appellant's explanation for the delay, namely the alleged delay in obtaining certified copies of proceedings and judgment, was unsupported by any evidence. The court concluded that the delay was inordinate and that the appellant had lost interest in the appeal. Consequently, the application for dismissal for want of prosecution was allowed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs under Order 41, rule 31(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The application for dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution is allowed with costs.
- The appeal is dismissed with costs under Order 41, rule 31(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLICOFKENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 84 OF 2006
JOHN KALANZA ................................ APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
MWENDE KINYALI ........................... RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
R U L I N G
This appeal was lodged by memorandum of appeal dated and filed on9th June 2006. The appeal is against the decree of the lower court passed on11th May 2006. The decree was to the effect that the Appellant was under obligation to maintain his two children with the Respondent. The court ordered that he pays KShs. 7,000/00 per month to the Respondent for this purpose until the children attain the age of majority. The court also awarded costs of the suit to the Respondent.
The memorandum of appeal was served shortly after the appeal was lodged. Since then (2006) the appeal has not been set down for hearing. The Appellant has never even moved the court for admission of the appeal or for the giving of directions. The Appellant appears to have lost interest in the appeal. This prompted the Respondent to apply by notice of motion dated27th May 2008 for dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution and the setting aside of the order of stay of execution apparently obtained by the Appellant. The application is made under Order 41, rule 31(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (the Rules). The inherent power of the court is also invoked. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Respondent’s counsel.
The Appellant has opposed the application as set out in his replying affidavit sworn on 5th and filed on7th May 2010. He explains the delay in prosecuting his appeal by saying that there has been delay by the court in supplying to him certified copies of proceedings and judgment. He has not exhibited one single correspondence or document showing any efforts he may have made to obtain copies of the proceedings and judgment. His explanation for the delay has no factual basis and I hereby reject it.
There has been inordinate delay in prosecuting this appeal. The Appellant has not offered any credible explanation for this delay. The memorandum of appeal was served in the year 2006, that is, four years ago. The appeal has not been set down for hearing. In these circumstances one can only conclude that the Appellant has lost interest in his appeal.
I will allow the application at hand as prayed with costs. The appeal herein is hereby dismissed with costs under Order 41, rule 31 (2) of the Rules. It is so ordered.
DATEDAT MACHAKOS THIS 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
H. P. G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED THIS 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010