[2017] KEHC 4855 (KLR)
The court found that the delay in filing the record of appeal was not attributable to the appellant but to the lower court's failure to supply the necessary proceedings, despite the appellant's demonstrated efforts to obtain them. Applying the principles from Ivita v Kyumbu, the court exercised its discretion not to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 4855 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Josephat Kariru Kigo; Defendant: Tobias Wafula Nyongesa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 142 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appellant allowed to proceed with appeal, subject to filing record of appeal within 45 days; otherwise, appeal stands dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Record of Appeal, Court Discretion
- 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
Josephat Kariru Kigo
Appellant
Tobias Wafula Nyongesa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the record of appeal is excusable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the delay in filing the record of appeal was not attributable to the appellant but to the lower court's failure to supply the necessary proceedings, despite the appellant's demonstrated efforts to obtain them. Applying the principles from Ivita v Kyumbu, the court exercised its discretion not to dismiss the appeal, holding that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for the delay and that justice could still be done. The court allowed the appeal to proceed, subject to the appellant filing the record of appeal within 45 days, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appellant allowed to proceed with appeal, subject to filing record of appeal within 45 days; otherwise, appeal stands dismissed.
Orders
- The appellant is allowed to proceed with the appeal.
- The Executive Officer of the Lower Court is directed to avail the file and typed proceedings to the appellant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
HCA 142 OF 2012
JOSEPHAT KARIRU KIGO.................................APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
TOBIAS WAFULA NYONGESA...........................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The parties to this appeal were served a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed under Order 42 Rule 35 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. There is evidence on record that both the appellant and respondent received the Notices on 9/1/2017 and 12/1/2017 respectively. The Notice was set for mention on 17/1/2017. On the said date the appellant's counsel attended court and requested for time to file an affidavit to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. The court (Mulwa J) allowed an adjournment to 8/3/2017.
2. The respondent did not attend court on 8/3/2017. The court was satisfied that the notice and replying affidavit had been duly served upon the respondents and on that basis allowed the appellant to proceed in the absence of the respondent.
3. In her submissions, Ms. Njoroge for the appellant relied on the affidavit sworn by Josephat Kariru Kigo, the appellant in the case. The deponent states in the affidavit that he filed the appeal on 6/8/2012 and immediately applied for proceedings to enable him compile a record of appeal. That since then the proceedings have never been supplied and that the lower court file Nakuru CMCC No.1907 of 2005 had gone missing. He displayed letters he had written to the Chief Magistrate's Court seeking the proceedings. He pleaded for a chance to prosecute the appeal.
4. In deciding this application, I am guided by the principles aptly summarized in the case of Ivita Vs Kyumbu (1984) KLR 441:-
“The test by the court in an application for the dismissal of a suit for want of prosecution is whether the delay is prolonged and inexcusable, and if it is, whether justice can be done despite the delay. Thus even if the delay is prolonged, if the court is satisfied with the plaintiff's excuse for the delay and that justice can still be done to the parties, the action will not be dismissed but it will be ordered that it be set down for hearing at the earliest available time. It is a matter in the discretion of the court”.
5. I have considered the submissions by Ms. Njoroge on why the appellant has not prepared the record of appeal to date. It is apparent that the unavailability of the proceedings has frustrated her efforts. It is also apparent that the omission has been on the part of the lower court. I am persuaded that such an omission should not be blamed on the appellant and that the appellant has shown sufficient cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.
6. In the premises, I allow the appellant to proceed with the appeal. Further, I direct the Executive Officer of the Lower Court to avail the file and typed proceedings to enable the appellant compile the record of appeal. The appeal shall however stand dismissed if the appellant shall not have filed the record within 45 days.
Orders accordingly.
Ruling delivered, dated and signed in open court this 30th day of March 2017
…............................
R. LAGAT KORIR
JUDGE
In the presence of:
C/A Wanjohi
….............................for appellant
.............................for respondent