[2017] KEHC 6606 (KLR)
The court found that although the stay of proceedings order was intended to last until the end of 2014, the appellants provided a persuasive explanation for the delay in prosecuting the appeal, namely the inability to trace the trial court file. The respondent did not effectively challenge this explanation through...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6606 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Naftali Masara Okwanyo; Appellant: Jane Masara; Respondent: Emma Wambui
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 485 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Motion to Set Aside Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome
- motion dismissed
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Appeal Timelines, Setting Aside Orders
- 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
Naftali Masara Okwanyo
Appellant
Jane Masara
Appellant
Emma Wambui
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Motion to Set Aside Stay of Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the stay of proceedings order issued on 21.01.2014 should be set aside due to non-prosecution of the appeal within the stipulated period.
- 2 Whether the appellants lost interest in prosecuting the appeal.
- 3 Whether the explanation for delay in prosecuting the appeal is sufficient to retain the stay order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the stay of proceedings order was intended to last until the end of 2014, the appellants provided a persuasive explanation for the delay in prosecuting the appeal, namely the inability to trace the trial court file. The respondent did not effectively challenge this explanation through affidavit evidence. The court noted that the original order did not specify that the stay would automatically lapse or be set aside upon default. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the motion to set aside the stay, finding no sufficient basis to penalize the appellants for the delay. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, and the appeal was admitted...
Court Disposition
motion dismissed
Orders
- The motion dated 4.11.2015 is dismissed.
- Each party shall bear its own costs of the motion.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 485 OF 2013
NAFTALI MASARA OKWANYO....1ST APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
JANE MASARA...............................2ND APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
-V E R S U S –
EMMA WAMBUI......................................RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
RULING
1. On 21. 01. 2014, this court issued an order staying proceedings in Nairobi C.M.C.C no. 5928 of 2008 pending the hearing and determination of this appeal within the year 2014. Emma Wambui, the Respondent/Applicant has now taken out the motion dated 4. 11. 2015 in which she sought for inter alia the aforesaid order to be set aside.
2. The motion is supported by the affidavit of Lilian Muthoni Njuguna. When served, Naftali Masara Okwanyo and Jane Masara, the 1st and 2nd Appellants respectively filed the replying affidavit sworn by Stephen Oyugi Okero, to oppose the motion. Learned counsels recorded a consent order to have the motion disposed of by written submissions.
3. I have considered the grounds stated on the face of the motion dated 4. 11. 2016 and the facts deponed in the affidavits filed in support and against the application. I have also considered the rival written submissions. It is the submission of the Respondent /Applicant that the order issued by Lady Justice Ougo on 21. 1.2014 staying proceedings in Nairobi C.M.C.C.C No. 5928 of 2008 was meant to last upto the end of the year 2014 when this appeal was anticipated to have been heard and concluded. The Respondent/Applicant further pointed out that as of the time of filing the current motion, the appeal had not and has not been prosecuted therefore this court’s order staying proceedings before the trial court should be set aside. It is also the submission of the Respondents/Applicants that the Appellants/Respondents have lost interest in pursuing this appeal.
4. The Appellant/Respondents on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the motion. They argued that they have not lost interest in pursuing the appeal because they took diligent steps to have the record of appeal filed and served upon the Respondent. It is said that the trial court’s file could not be traced until the year 2014 ended. The Appellants argued that the directions issued by lady Justice Ougo that the matter be heard within the year 2014 due to the fact that the matter was urgent and the same needed to be expeditiously heard and determined.
5. After a careful consideration of the material placed before this court, I am convinced that this court issued an order to have the intended appeal heard and determined within the year 2014. The Appellant have argued that there were some intervening factors, which made them not to prosecute the appeal within the stipulated. It is said that the lower court file could not be traced. The Respondent/ Applicant claimed that the trial court’s file has always been available hence the reason based on a missing file to be untenable. Stephen Oyugi Okero swore an affidavit claiming that he was personally involved in trying to trace the file as late as 26. 11. 2015. The Appellants stated that immediately they traced the trial court’s file they quickly prepared, filed and served the record of appeal. The Respondent/Applicant did not deem it fit to controvert the Appellants’/Respondents’ averments made on oath through another affidavit but instead they chose to respond vide their written submissions.
6. On my part, I find the explanation given by the Appellants/Respondents to be persuasive. Though Lady Justice Ougo, gave timelines when the appeal should have been concluded, she did not prescribe the penalty for any default. In other words she did not expressly state that the order for stay of proceedings would automatically be set aside. A fair order in the circumstances is to dismiss the motion dated 4. 11. 2015, which I hereby do. In the circumstances of this case, each party should meet its own costs of the motion. Now that the record of appeal has been filed and served, the appeal is admitted to hearing before a single judge. Parties to obtain dates for directions and hearing of the appeal on priority basis.
7. Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court this 2nd day of March, 2017.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
.............................................................. for the Appellant
............................................................... for the Respondent