[2019] KEHC 5285 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient diligence in prosecuting the appeal, as there was no evidence of proactive follow-up or communication with the court regarding the status of the lower court file. The appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay since...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 5285 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joseph Kanyigi Kiiru; Respondent: Cyrus Higi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 92 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- RB Ngetich
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Appellate Practice, Case Management
- 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
Joseph Kanyigi Kiiru
Appellant
Cyrus Higi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause 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 provided sufficient explanation for the delay in prosecuting the appeal.
- 3 Whether the appellant would suffer prejudice if the appeal is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient diligence in prosecuting the appeal, as there was no evidence of proactive follow-up or communication with the court regarding the status of the lower court file. The appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay since the filing of the appeal in 2012. The court held that the responsibility to move the appeal forward rested primarily with the appellant, and the lack of action or sufficient justification warranted dismissal. The court further noted that the appellant did not establish any prejudice that would result from the dismissal, nor did the grounds of appeal demonstrate a compelling...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs of the appeal are awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 92 OF 2012
JOSEPH KANYIGI KIIRU.........APPELLANT
VERSUS
CYRUS HIGI..............................RESPONDENT
(Being an Appeal from the Ruling/Order of Hon. J. Nthuku, Resident Magistrate delivered in Nakuru on the 27th April, 2012, in Nakuru CMCC No.1512 of 2002)
RULING
1. This is a ruling on Notice to Show Cause why this suit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The notice was issued at the instance of the court to the parties herein on 17th January 2019.
2. In response, the appellant filed replying affidavit dated 28th February 2019 sworn be the appellant. He averred that the lower court file could not be traced in the registry warranting delay in prosecuting this appeal. He averred that the High Court registry wrote to the Chief Magistrate a letter dated 22nd April 2016 and a mention date fixed for 27th June 2018 but the matter was not cause listed as the lower court file had not been forwarded to the High Court.
3. He further averred that the High Court sent a reminder to the chief Magistrate’s registry via letter dated 3rd October 2018. Appellant averred that he is ready and willing to prosecute the appeal and that he will be greatly prejudiced if the appeal is dismissed. He averred that he is ready to abide by any conditions that the court may impose.
4. The respondent filed an affidavit in support of notice to show cause. He averred that the appeal herein arise from a ruling delivered on 27th April 2012 which the court declined to allow the appellant’s application to have the case start de novo.
5. The respondent averred that the appellant does not appear to have been sufficiently proactive and diligent in seeking to facilitate the expeditiously disposal of this appeal given that the memorandum of appeal was filed on 2nd may 2012 and the High Court wrote to the chief Magistrate on 22nd April 2016 acknowledging receipt of the lower court file as deposed in paragraph 6 of the replying affidavit.
6. He further averred that our legal system being adversarial, it is the primary obligation of the appellant to follow up on his appeal. That the appellant has not tendered reasonable, sufficient and plausible reason for the delay in prosecuting the present appeal.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
7. I have considered averments by parties herein. I have also perused the court file. I note from record that the appeal herein was filed on 2nd May 2012.
8. The letter addressed to the chief magistrate asking for the lower court record is dated 3rd October 2018 asking for proceedings. The next action is this notice to show cause dated 19th January 2019.
9. The appellant has not attached any communication indicating that the appellant followed up proceedings. There is not request for mention to the court to ascertain position of proceedings and directions on the same by court.
10. Record do not show any activity on part of the appellant. I do agree with the respondent that the appellant should have been proactive to ensure that this appeal is prosecuted and determined.
11. The appellant has given no sufficient explanation for delay. This is an appeal on ruling on court’s decision, which declined request to start the case de novo. The appellant has not demonstrated in grounds of appeal filed that he stand to suffer any prejudice if the case proceed for hearing to warrant exercise of discretion by this court despite the delay. There is no indication that they never participated in the hearing.
12. From the foregoing, I do dismiss the appeal herein for want of prosecution.
13. FINAL ORDERS
1. This appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. Costs of the appeal to the respondent.
3. Nakuru CMCC No.1512 of 2002 to be set down for hearing on priority basis.
Judgment dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru this 11th day of July 2019.
……………………....
RACHEL NGETICH
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
Schola/Jenifer Court Assistant
Mutai holding brief for Gekonga Counsel for Appellant
Mr. Kimani for Kisila Counsel for Respondent