[2015] KEHC 512 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal since its institution, despite being notified that the lower court record was available. The appellant's counsel was served with notice to show cause but failed to attend court or provide any explanation for the delay. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 512 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Pangamwa Tulaga Ltd; Respondent: Francis Kimani Muturi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 26 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Overriding Objective, Expeditious Justice
- 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
Pangamwa Tulaga Ltd
Appellant
Francis Kimani Muturi
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 inordinate delay by the appellant.
- 2 Whether the appellant provided any explanation for the delay in prosecuting the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal since its institution, despite being notified that the lower court record was available. The appellant's counsel was served with notice to show cause but failed to attend court or provide any explanation for the delay. The court emphasized the overriding objective of expeditious disposal of cases as enshrined in Article 159 of the Constitution and the Civil Procedure Rules. In the absence of any action or explanation from the appellant, the court held that the delay was inordinate and unjustified, warranting dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2013
PANGAMWA TULAGA LTD………………..………..APPELLANT
VERSUS
FRANCIS KIMANI MUTURI…………………………RESPONDENT
COURT RULING
This appeal was instituted on 22nd January 2013 and to date, no record of appeal has been compiled, filed and served by the appellant upon the respondent. The lower record was availed in June 2013 and both parties were notified accordingly. There have been no actions taken to set down the appeal for prosecution. The Civil procedure Rules do oblige the appellant to be active participant in the preparation of the appeal for prosecution whether it is admitted or directions taken or not.
The overriding objectives of the law in this case are that proceedings have to be heard and determined expeditiously for that is what the Constitution under Article 159 espouses that justice shall not be delayed. In this case, the respondent too deserves justice, and his legitimate expectation is that the challenge to his lawfully obtained judgment in the lower court shall be heard and determined expeditiously. The appellant’s counsels were served with notice for today to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution but have not attended court. I am satisfied that there is inordinate delay in having this appeal prosecuted and there being no explanation for the inaction, I proceed and dismiss the whole appeal as filed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondents.
Orders accordingly.
Signed, dated and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 26th day of October, 2015
R.E. ABURILI
JUDGE