[2020] KEHC 6410 (KLR)
The court found that while the appellant's advocate did not provide credible evidence to fully explain the delay in prosecuting the appeal, the circumstances—specifically, the change of advocates and lack of immediate access to the client file—made the explanation plausible. The court also noted that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 6410 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Monicah Wangui Mwaura; Respondent: Joseph Ruto Cheruiyot; Respondent: DL Festive Limited; Respondent: Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 67 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal not dismissed; appellant granted opportunity to prosecute appeal.
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Representation of Parties
- 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
Monicah Wangui Mwaura
Appellant
Joseph Ruto Cheruiyot
Respondent
DL Festive Limited
Respondent
Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited
Respondent
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 due to delay by the appellant.
- 2 Whether the appellant's advocate is properly on record and whether this affects the prosecution of the appeal.
- 3 Whether the delay in prosecuting the appeal has been sufficiently explained.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the appellant's advocate did not provide credible evidence to fully explain the delay in prosecuting the appeal, the circumstances—specifically, the change of advocates and lack of immediate access to the client file—made the explanation plausible. The court also noted that the respondents' advocate had acquiesced to the current advocate's participation and that any issue of representation could be remedied. In the interest of justice, and given the absence of evidence that the parties were informed of the availability of the lower court file, the court exercised its discretion not to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and granted the appellant a further...
Court Disposition
Appeal not dismissed; appellant granted opportunity to prosecute appeal.
Orders
- The appeal is spared from dismissal for want of prosecution.
- The appellant is granted a chance to prosecute her appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2016
MONICAH WANGUI MWAURA..................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
JOSEPH RUTO CHERUIYOT...........................................1ST RESPONDENT
DL FESTIVE LIMITED....................................................2ND RESPONDENT
DIAMOND TRUST BANK KENYA LIMITED................3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This ruling is premised on the notice to show cause issued on 11th December, 2019 requiring the parties to show cause as to why the appeal ought not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. Ondieki Mitiambo advocate for the appellant responded to the notice to show cause by putting in a relying affidavit in which he stated that being aggrieved with the judgment delivered by the trial court on 26th January, 2016, the appellant instructed the deponent’s firm to institute an appeal against the said judgment, upon which the deponent filed the memorandum of appeal on 24th February, 2016.
3. The deponent stated that subsequently, he was unable to reach the appellant for quite some time and that the appellant did not supply him with the requisite documents to enable him facilitate the appeal and that it is only recently, following issuance of the notice to show cause, that the appellant’s whereabouts became known.
4. According to the deponent, the appellant has expressed her interest in proceeding with the appeal and he urged this court to grant her the opportunity to pursue her appeal to conclusion.
5. At the oral hearing of the notice to show cause, Mr. Abierocounsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant has not sufficiently explained the non-prosecution of her appeal and that this is not the first time a notice to show cause has been issued to the parties.
6. Mr. Abiero contended that he has severally communicated to the appellant’s advocate, nudging him to file a record of appeal to no avail and further contended that the appellant’s advocate should have contacted the appellant’s former advocate directly to follow up on the pleadings rather than going through the appellant herself.
7. It was also the learned counsel’s submission that the appellant’s current advocate is not properly on record since he did not seek leave of the court.
8. In reply, Mr. Mitiambo advocate acting for the appellant argued that reasons behind the delay were disclosed in his affidavit and that he was previously unable to obtain the appellant’s file from the former advocate.
9. The advocate mentioned that his client was recently able to obtain the file from her then advocates and is now ready and willing to prosecute her appeal.
10. Mr. Abiero rejoined by submitting that he had previously filed an application to have the appeal dismissed.
11. I have taken into consideration the averments made in the affidavit and reinforced by the rival oral arguments.
12. The record shows that the appeal was last in court on 28th November, 2018 pursuant to an application for dismissal of the appeal filed by the respondents, during which time the appellant was notably absent from court. The Deputy Registrar consequently directed that the appeal be fixed ex parte for notice to show cause on 22nd January, 2019.
13. It is apparent from the record that a notice to show cause was soon thereafter issued on 29th November, 2018 requiring the parties to attend court on 22nd January, 2019 to give reasons as to why the appeal is not deserving of dismissal. There is no indication as to whether the notice to show cause was ever heard.
14. No evidence was placed by the appellant’s advocate to show any efforts made at contacting the appellant for purposes of obtaining the lower court pleadings. In the same manner, the respondents did not tender any evidence by way of correspondences to support the submission that requests were made to the appellant to file her record of appeal.
15. Needless to say that the record shows that the Deputy Registrar-Civil Division wrote to the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Githunguri requesting for the lower court file to be made available for purposes of the appeal.
16. According to the record, the lower court file was forwarded to the High Court-Civil Appeals Division by way of the letter dated 10th August, 2016 and received on 15th August, 2016. There is no indication that either of the parties was informed on the availability of the lower court file to enable the appellant file a record of appeal.
17. While I am of the view that the appellant’s advocate has not brought any credible evidence to support the explanation given for the delay, upon perusal of the lower court file I confirmed that the appellant was represented by a different firm of advocates in the suit thereby making it plausible that the current advocate did not have immediate access to the client’s file for further dealing. Furthermore, the respondents’ advocate being aware of and acquiescing to the current advocate’s participation in the appeal cannot now be heard to raise the issue that the said advocate is not properly on record and in any event, the issue of representation is one which in my view can be remedied.
18. In the interest of justice and for the foregoing reasons, I will spare the Appeal and grant the appellant a chance to prosecute her appeal.
19. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at NAIROBI this 7TH day of MAY, 2020.
L. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
……………………………….. for the Appellant
………………………………... for the Respondents