[2020] KEHC 6861 (KLR)
The court found that while there was significant delay in prosecuting the appeal, the appellants had made efforts to obtain the lower court file and typed proceedings, which were unavailable due to circumstances beyond their control. The court held that it would not be just to assign the entire blame to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 6861 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Pentagon Agencies Ltd; Appellant: Another; Respondent: Elizabeth Muute Muthoka
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 54 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- respondent's application dismissed with conditions imposed on appellants
- Judges
- K Kimondo
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Stay of Execution, Reconstruction of Court File
- 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
Pentagon Agencies Ltd
Appellant
Another
Appellant
Elizabeth Muute Muthoka
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay by the appellants.
- 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the appeal is excusable given the circumstances of the missing lower court file.
- 3 Whether justice can still be done despite the delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while there was significant delay in prosecuting the appeal, the appellants had made efforts to obtain the lower court file and typed proceedings, which were unavailable due to circumstances beyond their control. The court held that it would not be just to assign the entire blame to the appellants. The test is whether justice can still be done, and in this case, the court determined that with appropriate directions and timelines, the appeal could proceed without unduly prejudicing the respondent. The respondent's application to dismiss the appeal was therefore disallowed, but strict conditions were imposed on the appellants to move the process forward within specified...
Court Disposition
respondent's application dismissed with conditions imposed on appellants
Orders
- The respondent's notice of motion dated 18th October 2016 is disallowed.
- The appellants shall move the lower court to reconstruct the file within sixty days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MURANG’A
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2016
PENTAGON AGENCIES LTD & ANOTHER.......................APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ELIZABETH MUUTE MUTHOKA........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The respondent prays that this appeal be dismissedfor want of prosecution. The notice of motion is dated 28th June 2018.
2. The respondent avers that the appeal was lodged way back on 18th October 2016; and, that no steps have been taken to set it down for hearing. She avers that the record of appeal has never been filed. The respondent’s grouse is that that the appellants went into slumber after obtaining a stay of execution of the decree; and, that the delay is prejudicial.
3. The appellants’ counsel did not appear at the hearing of the motion. I have however seen a replying affidavit sworn by the 2nd appellant on 6th May 2019. The riposte is that the delays are attributed to factors beyond their control. There is a letter dated 27th January 2017 addressed to the lower court seeking typed proceedings. He deposes that the lower court file went missing and has not been traced to date. A further letter dated 16th November 2017 is attached.
4. On 24th February 2020, I heard further submissions from learned counsel for the respondent. Like I have stated, the appellants’ counsel did not attend despite being served on 16th January 2020.
5. I have studied the court record. It is true that the memorandum of appeal was lodged over three years ago. The appellants were granted a conditional stay of execution on 24th May 2017. The appeal has not been set down for hearing since that date.
6. The crux of the matter is whether the delay is excusable. In our adversarial system of justice, it was the primary obligation of the appellants to follow up on their appeal. At the time of hearing the present motion, the lower court file or typed proceedings were still unavailable. The appellants had raised the matter with the Executive Officer of the lower court in their letter of 16th November 2020. Granted those circumstances I cannot assign the entire blame to the appellants.
7. The test in a matter of this nature is whether justice can still be done. See Ivita v Kyumbu [1984] KLR 441. The overriding objective is to do justice to the parties. See Harit Sheth Advocate v Shamas CharaniaNairobi, Court of Appeal, Civil Appeal 68 of 2008 [2010] eKLR.
8. There is no doubt that the continued delay has prejudiced the respondent: She cannot reap the fruits of her decree. The fact that the decretal sum was deposited in court may be re-assuring but not a solution to her needs. It is not lost on me either that the decree was for general and special damages arising out of an accident.
9. The upshot is that the respondent’s notice of motion dated 18th October 2016 is disallowed. The appellants shall however move the lower court to reconstructthe file within the next sixty days. Secondly, the appellants shall also ensure that the record of appeal is filed and served within one hundred and twenty days of today’s date. Thirdly, the appellants shall thereafter ensure that the appeal is placed before the judge in chambers for directions not more than thirty days from the date of filing and service of the record of appeal.
10. If the appellants fail to meet any of the three conditions within the set time, the appeal shall automatically stand dismissed.
11. Costs shall be in the appeal.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at MURANG’A this 16th day of April 2020.
KANYI KIMONDO
JUDGE
ORDER
In light of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by his Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020, this ruling has been delivered to the parties by electronic mail. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court.
KANYI KIMONDO
JUDGE
Ruling read in chambers in the presence of:
Ms. Dorcas, Court Assistant.