[2021] KEHC 7414 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal since its filing, and no response was filed to the application for dismissal. The application was unopposed. The court also found that the requirements for change of advocates had been met. Accordingly, the court granted leave...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 7414 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Karisa Nzai Munyika; Respondent: Anne Wanjiku Rugiri
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 102 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application allowed; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Judges
- DO Chepkwony
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Change of Advocate, 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
Karisa Nzai Munyika
Appellant
Anne Wanjiku Rugiri
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.
- 2 Whether leave should be granted for change of advocates for the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal since its filing, and no response was filed to the application for dismissal. The application was unopposed. The court also found that the requirements for change of advocates had been met. Accordingly, the court granted leave for the new firm of advocates to come on record for the respondent and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, awarding costs to the applicant/respondent.
Court Disposition
application allowed; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The firm of J. O. Magolo & Company Advocates is granted leave to come on record for the respondent in place of Mogaka, Omwenga & Mabeya Advocates.
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the applicant/respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA
CIVIL APPEAL NO.102 OF 2019
KARISA NZAI MUNYIKA.........................................APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
ANNE WANJIKU RUGIRI.........................................RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
RULING
1. The matter has come up for interparties hearing of an application notice dated 10th March, 2021 in which the Applicant is seeking for orders that:-
a) Leave be granted to the Firm of J. O. Magolo & Company Advocates to come on record for the Respondent in place of the Firm of Mogaka, Omwenga & Mabeya, Advocates.
b) This Appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution.
c) Costs of the application be provided for.
2. The application is premised on the grounds on the face of it and Supporting Affidavit of ANNE WANJIKU RUGIRI, the Applicant/ Respondent sworn on 10th March, 2021. The gist of it being that since filing the Appeal herein on 28th May 2019, the Appellant has made no steps to ensure that the Appeal is heard and determined, a clear indication that he is no longer interested in pursuing the same.
3. According to the Applicant’s Counsel, the application, order and hearing notice were served upon the Firm of M/S Okanga & Co. Advocates and M/S Mogaka Omwenga & Mabeye & Co. Advocates on 29th March, 2021.
4. Today, only Mr. Omwengaof M/S Mogaka, Omwenga & Mabeye Advocates has attended court and indicated that despite not having been served with a consent by the Firm of M/S Magolo & Co. Advocates, who are taking over the matter, they were not opposed to the application and urged that the same be allowed as presented with no orders as to costs.
5. On the other hand, there was no appearance by the Firm of M/S Ikanga & Co. Advocates for the Appellant/Respondent dispute a confirmation from the Affidavit of Service and annexture attached thereto of service.
6. There is then no response that has been filed to the application. I thus find the application notice dated 10th March, 2021 unopposed and allow the same in the terms presented as follows:-.
a) The firm of J. O Magolo & Company Advocates be and are hereby granted leave to come on record for the Respondent in the place of the Firm of Mogaka, Omwenga & Mabeya Advocates.
b) The Appeal filed herein is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the Applicant/Respondent.
It is hereby so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED VIRTUALLY at MOMBASA this 20thday of APRIL, 2021.
D. O. CHEPKWONY
JUDGE
20/4/2021