[2019] KEHC 12194 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant/respondent failed to comply with court directions to compile and serve the record of appeal within the stipulated 90 days, and no explanation or application for extension was made. The delay was inordinate and unjustified, prejudicing the respondents. The court held that the appeal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 12194 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Mbua Gaitho; Respondent: Anna Munyiua & Joseph Mutuku Mbithi (suing as representatives of the estate of Job Mulinge Mbithi – Deceased)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 294 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Application allowed; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Stay of Execution, 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
Peter Mbua Gaitho
Applicant
Anna Munyiua & Joseph Mutuku Mbithi (suing as representatives of the estate of Job Mulinge Mbithi – Deceased)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application 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 appellant.
- 2 Whether the stay of execution pending appeal should be set aside and the decretal sum released to the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant/respondent failed to comply with court directions to compile and serve the record of appeal within the stipulated 90 days, and no explanation or application for extension was made. The delay was inordinate and unjustified, prejudicing the respondents. The court held that the appeal stood dismissed following the lapse of the 90 days, and the respondent's reliance on procedural technicalities could not override the need for expeditious justice. The court exercised its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and ensure efficient use of judicial time, allowing the application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and to discharge the stay of...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The order of stay of execution pending appeal is discharged/set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 294 OF 2012
PETER MBAU GAITHO ............................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
ANNA MUNYIUA & JOSEPH MUTUKU.................................RESPONDENT
MBITHI(Suing as the representatives of the
estate of JOB MULINGE MBITHI–Deceased)
RULING
1. The application dated 29th June, 2017 seeks orders that the Applicant’s appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. Secondly that the order of stay of execution pending appeal issued by the Chief Magistrate Court on 3rd August, 2012 and reviewed on 19th October, 2012 be discharged and or set aside.
3. Thirdly that the decretal sum deposited and held in the joint interest earning account in the names of Mbigi Njuguna & Co. Advocate and Kefa Ombati & Co. Advocate be released to the Respondents’ Advocates for onward transmission to the Respondents.
4. The application is premised on the grounds stated in the body of the application and is supported by the affidavit in support sworn by, Anna Munyiva Mutua. The gist of the application is that the Respondent herein appealed against the judgment in Nairobi Milimani CMCC. 7729 of 2009 which was delivered on 11th May, 2012. The said judgment for Ksh.1,421,240/=, costs and interest was in favour of the Respondent against Appellant. The Respondent was granted orders of stay of the said judgment pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal on condition that Ksh.500,000/= was paid to the Applicant herein and the balance of the decretal sum be deposited in an interest earning bank account in the joint names of the advocates for the respective parties. This was done.
5. The Applicant’s complaint is the Respondent has gone to sleep and failed to take steps to prosecute the Appeal herein. The Applicant has decried the delay herein and stated that the family left behind by the deceased is prejudiced by the delay.
6. In opposition to the application the Respondent filed the Notice of Preliminary Objection herein dated 4th September, 2017 on the following grounds:
“The motion is premature and misconceived as no directions have been given under Order 42 rule 13 so as to entitle the Applicant to invoke the court’s discretion under order 35. ”
7. I have considered the application, the response to the same and the submissions filed herein.
8. A perusal of this file reflects that the application at hand which is dated 29th June, 2017 was first fixed for hearing on 6th November, 2017. The application proceeded exparte and the ruling dated 31st January, 2018 was delivered and the application allowed. Subsequently, the Notice of motion dated 7th March, 2018 was filed seeking orders that the order made on 31st January, 2018 be set aside. In the ruling herein dated 4th December, 2018 the court observed that there was a delay of about 5 years but since the lower court file had been availed, to meet the wider interest of justice, gave the Respondent the chance to compile and serve the Record of Appeal within 90 days.
9. It seems the Respondent again went to sleep and only filed the Record of Appeal herein on 26th August, 2019, long after the lapse of the 90 days period given and long after the application at hand was fixed for hearing. No explanation whatsoever has been given for the failure to comply with the orders herein made on 4th December, 2018. No extension of the time within which to file the Record of Appeal was sought. Consequently, the appeal herein stood dismissed following the lapse of the 90 days.
10. The Respondent has relied on Order 42 rule 13 Civil Procedure Rules 2010. Rule 13 (1) stipulates as follows:
“On notice to the parties delivered not less than twenty-one days after the date of service of the memorandum of appeal the appellant shall cause the appeal to be listed for the giving of directions by a judge in chambers.”
11. This court is in agreement with the exposition in the case of Microsoft Corporation v Mitsumi Garage Ltd & another Nairobi HCCC No. 810 of 2001:[2001] 2EA 460,it was appreciated that:
“Rules of procedure are the handmaids and not the mistresses of justice and should not be elevated to a fetish since theirs is to facilitate the administration of justice in a fair, orderly and predictable manner, not to fetter or choke it...”
12. As stated by this court in the earlier ruling dated on 31st January, 2018 the court has inherent powers under Section 3A Civil Procedure Act to make such orders as necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. The overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules is to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of Civil disputes. This objective cannot be achieved when a party goes to sleep and fails to comply with the directions given by the court. The position taken by the Respondent herein is an impediment to the efficient use of judicial time and timely disposed of the Appeal herein.
13. In the upshot, I find merits in the application at hand and allow the same with costs.
Dated, signed and delivered in Nairobi this 14th day of Nov., 2019
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE