[2012] KEHC 2475 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant had not taken any meaningful steps to prosecute the appeal since November 2008, despite having made an initial deposit and request for proceedings. No evidence was provided of further efforts to obtain the necessary documents after that date. The court held that the appellant had...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2475 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Moses Lubakwa; Respondent: Bigot Flowers (K) Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 100 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Procedure, Delay in Prosecution
- 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 Lubakwa
Appellant
Bigot Flowers (K) Ltd
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 inaction by the appellant.
- 2 Whether the appellant made sufficient efforts to obtain proceedings necessary for the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant had not taken any meaningful steps to prosecute the appeal since November 2008, despite having made an initial deposit and request for proceedings. No evidence was provided of further efforts to obtain the necessary documents after that date. The court held that the appellant had not acted diligently and was not serious in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, as the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient effort or interest in progressing the matter.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA ATNAKURU
CIVIL APPEAL 100 OF 2008
MOSES LUBAKWA ………...……….........................................……………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
BIGOT FLOWERS (K) LTD…...…………............................................………RESPONDENT
RULING
This appeal was filed by Moses Lubakwa on 12/6/08 against Bigot Flowers (K) Ltd. On 14/9/2011, the Deputy Registrar issued a Notice to the appellant to show cause, pursuant to Order 17 Rule 2, for reasons that since the appeal was filed the appellant has not taken any steps towards its prosecution. When the Notice To Show Cause came up for hearing on 18/10/2011, the respondent requested for time to file a response, and through the firm of Mboga Advocate, George Gisore Mbgoga filed a replying affidavit dated 10/4/2011 in which the NTSC is opposed. It was deponed that the inability to proceed with the appeal is not intentional; that the appeal arises from a dismissal order made in SPMCC No. 1126/05 yet the appellant was not party to those proceedings; that efforts to proceed with the appeal have been frustrated by the lower court registry which has refused or failed to supply the appellant with a copy of the documents and typed proceedings to enable the appellant/respondent prepare the record of appeal, That a deposit of Kshs.60/- was made (GGM2) on 20/11/2008 to facilitate the typing of proceedings and a letter dated 18/7/2008 requesting for the proceedings but there has been no response.
Ms Wanjiru holding brief for Mr. Nyachoti urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
The letter dated 18/7/08 requesting for typed proceedings and judgment was written about a month after the filing of this appeal. The deposit of Kshs.60/- was then made in November 2008. No further effort has been made by the appellant towards the prosecution of this appeal, the last effort having been made in November 2008, over 3 years ago. Since the NTSC was isssued by the court on 18/10/2011, till it was heard on 17/11/2011, there is no evidence that any effort has been made by the appellant to procure the proceedings in order to prepare the record of appeal. The appellant is not serious and has not acted diligently. I find no merit in the replying affidavit and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Costs to the respondent.
DATED and DELIVERED this 20th day of July, 2012.
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
PRESENT:
N/A for the appellant.
Ms Wanjiru for the respondent.
Kennedy – Court Clerk.