[2004] KEHC 2235 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant was not at fault for the delay in prosecuting the appeal, as the delay was caused by the lower court's failure to transmit its record to the High Court, an administrative function beyond the appellant's control. The appellant had complied with all previous court orders, including...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 2235 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Uneek Electrical Company Limited; Respondent: Joseph Fanuel Alela
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 676 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the appellant
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Process, Stay of Execution, Record of Appeal, Court Administration
- 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
Uneek Electrical Company Limited
Appellant
Joseph Fanuel Alela
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the appellant is responsible for the delay in prosecuting the appeal due to the lower court's failure to transmit the record.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant was not at fault for the delay in prosecuting the appeal, as the delay was caused by the lower court's failure to transmit its record to the High Court, an administrative function beyond the appellant's control. The appellant had complied with all previous court orders, including filing the record of appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, it would be unjust to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution when the appellant had fulfilled its obligations and the delay was not due to its inaction.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the appellant
Orders
- The respondent's application dated March 20, 2004 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the appellant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO 676 OF 2002
UNEEK ELECTRICAL COMPANY LIMITED …..…… APPELLANT
VERSUS
JOSEPH FANUEL ALELA ……………………….……. RESPONDENT
RULING
This is an application under Order XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) and all other enabling provisions of the law. In it, the Respondent seeks to have this appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. He also sought other orders which would follow such a dismissal but I do not see the need to consider them here as will become apparent shortly. In fact, at the hearing of the application, his Counsel did not address me on them and I take it that they were abandoned.
The matters leading to the application are fairly straight forward. The Respondent sued the Appellant in the lower court claiming damages for personal injuries sustained by himself for which he blamed the Appellant. The lower court entered Judgment in his favour. The Appellant was aggrieved by the decision of the lower court and appealed to this court, hence, the present appeal. Pending the hearing and determination of its appeal, the Appellant successfully applied to the lower court for an order for stay which was granted upon terms that it pays Kshs.200,000/= to the Respondent and deposit the balance of the decretal sum of Kshs.316,698/= into a fixed deposit account in the joint names of the Advocates for the parties. The conditions for stay were complied with.
On June 24, 2003 the Respondent filed another application seeking to have this appeal dismissed for the same reason advanced in the application before me. That application was heard by my learned Brother the Honourable Mr Justice Ransley on July 24, 2003. The Learned Judge did not dismiss the appeal but directed the Appellant to file the Record of Appeal within thirty days. If that was not done, the appeal would have been dismissed. The Appellant complied with that order and filed the Record of Appeal on August 22, 2003. No further step has been taken by the Appellant since then. This prompted the Respondent to file the instant application. The Respondent’s complaint is that the Appellant has not been active in processing the appeal.
At the hearing of the application, Mrs Ngala for the Respondent, outlined the above facts.
Mr Bw’omote, for the Appellant, on the other hand, argued, and I agree with him, that his client was not guilty of the complaint relied upon by the Respondent. It is quite obvious that the appeal has not taken off because, the lower court has not forwarded to this court its record as required by the Rules before the appeal can be admitted to hearing. This is clearly recognised in the Respondent’s Advocates’ letter dated November 24, 2003 and annexed to the affidavit of the Respondent sworn on March 20, 2004 as “JFA 2” in support of the application.
The Appellant has no power to control process of the transmission of the lower court’s file to this court which is a purely administrative function between the two courts. It would, therefore, be unfair to punish it for no fault of its own.
I, therefore, do not find any merit in the Respondent’s application dated March 20, 2004 and dismiss it with costs to the Appellant.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 21st day of April, 2004.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE