[2016] KEHC 2335 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal since 2011, despite being under a duty to do so and having been granted time to engage an advocate. The appellant's continued enjoyment of stay orders without progressing the appeal was prejudicial to the applicants, who were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 2335 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Moses Ambogo Wandera; Applicant: Francis Tom Ochieng; Applicant: Melsa Auma Okumu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 8 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal of Appeal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. Applicants awarded costs. Liberty to move trial court for vacation of stay order.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Procedure, Stay of Execution
- 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
Moses Ambogo Wandera
Appellant
Francis Tom Ochieng
Applicant
Melsa Auma Okumu
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Dismissal of Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inaction by the appellant.
- 2 Whether the order of stay issued in the lower court should be vacated.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal since 2011, despite being under a duty to do so and having been granted time to engage an advocate. The appellant's continued enjoyment of stay orders without progressing the appeal was prejudicial to the applicants, who were entitled to the fruits of the judgment. The court held that the requirements of Order 42 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 had been met, and there was no justification for further delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, and the applicants were awarded costs. The court also noted that the applicants were at liberty to move the trial court for...
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. Applicants awarded costs. Liberty to move trial court for vacation of stay order.
Orders
- The appellant’s appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The applicants are at liberty to move the trial court for vacation of the order of stay in Busia PMCC No. 301 of 2007.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2011
MOSES AMBOGO WANDERA……………RESPONDENT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
FRANCIS TOM OCHIENG……………..…..………………1ST APPLICANT
MELSA AUMA OKUMU…….…….…….…..………………2ND APPLICANT
R U L I N G
1. The application before Court is the Notice of Motion dated 4th December, 2011 in which the applicants pray for the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution, vacation of the order of stay issued in lower Court file No. Busia P.M.C.C. No 301 of 2007and costs of the application.
2. The affidavit dated 9thDecember, 2011 was sworn by the 1st Applicant, Francis Tom in support of the application. He is one of the respondents in the appeal. In his affidavit, he states that since 15th March, 2011, the Appellant has not taken any steps to fix the appeal for hearing. He further states that the Appellant is enjoying stay orders from the lower Court and he is not suffering any loss.
3. Mr. Ashioya, counsel for the applicants in his address to the Court reiterated the contents of the supporting affidavit. He further added that the Appellant in an attempt to steal a match against the applicants has been enjoying stay orders since 2011.
4. The application is unopposed despite various hearing dates being served upon the Appellant.
5. The law applicable to dismissal of appeals for want of prosecution is contained in Order 42 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 which provides that:
“35. (1) Unless within three months after the giving of directions under rule 13 the appeal shall have been set down for hearing by the appellant, the respondent shall be at liberty to either set down the appeal for hearing or to apply by summons for its dismissal for want of prosecution.
(2) If, within one year after service of the memorandum of appeal, the appeal shall not have been set down for hearing, the registrar shall on notice to the parties list the appeal before a judge in chambers for dismissal.”
6. The above provisions envisage that an appeal should first be listed for directions. From the court record, upon admission of the appeal the Appellant was ordered to serve a record of appeal and thereafter seek directions. This was in May 2011. It is also evident from the court record that when the matter came before the court in May 2012 the Appellant requested for time to engage an advocate. No activity on the part of the Appellant has been noted in the file since then. The conduct of the Appellant is one of disinterest in prosecuting the appeal.
7. The Appellant was under a duty to ensure that he played an active role in prosecution of his appeal and that it was dealt with in an expeditious manner. His reasons for failure to comply with the orders of the court would be best explained by him. Since 2011, the Appellant has not taken any step towards the prosecution of the appeal. He continues to enjoy orders of stay at the expense of the applicants/respondents who would wish to enjoy the fruits of the judgment.
8. As such, this court is left with no option but to make the following orders:
i. The Appellant’s appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
ii. As reasons for the grant of the order of stay of execution in Busia PMCC No. 301 of 2007 are not known to this court, the applicants are at liberty to move the trial court for vacation of the order.
iii. The costs of this application are awarded to the applicants.
Dated, signed and delivered at Busia this 29thday of Sept., 2016
W. KORIR,
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT