[2018] KEHC 8940 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal for over five years and had not provided any explanation for the delay. The responsibility to prepare the record of appeal and move the matter forward rested with the appellant. The court exercised its inherent powers to prevent...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 8940 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Mbai Gaitho; Respondent: Anna Munyiva Mutua; Respondent: Joseph Mutuku Mbithi
- 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, Record of Appeal, Court Inherent Powers
- 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 Mbai Gaitho
Appellant
Anna Munyiva Mutua
Respondent
Joseph Mutuku Mbithi
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.
- 2 Whether the stay of execution order should be set aside.
- 3 Whether the decretal sum held in the joint account should be released to the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant had failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal for over five years and had not provided any explanation for the delay. The responsibility to prepare the record of appeal and move the matter forward rested with the appellant. The court exercised its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process, noting that allowing the appeal to remain dormant would be unjust to the respondents. Consequently, the application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution was allowed, the stay of execution was set aside, and the deposited decretal sum was ordered to be released to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application allowed; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The stay of execution pending appeal is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 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......................................................................APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
ANNA MUNYIVA MUTUA
JOSEPH MUTUKU MBITHI...........................................................RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS
(Suing for and on behalf of the dependents and the estate of JOSEPH MAINA KANYI (Deceased)
RULING
1. The application dated 29th June, 2017 seeks orders that:
1. That the Appellant’s appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. That the order for stay of execution pending appeal issued by the Chief Magistrates Court on 3rd August 2012 and reviewed on 19th October 2012 be discharged and or set aside.
3. That the decretal sum deposited and held in the joint interest earning account in the names of Mbigi Njuguna & Co. Advocates and Kefa Ombati & Co. Advocates be released to the Respondents Advocates for onward transmission to the Respondent.
4. That the costs of this application and those of the appeal be borne by the Appellant.
2. The application is based on the grounds stated therein and is supported by the affidavit of the 1st Applicant, Anna Munyiva Mutua. It is stated that the judgment of the Lower Court was delivered on 11th May, 2012 in favour of the Applicants for the sum of Ksh.1,421,240/= plus costs and interest. That the Respondent filed the Appeal herein on 8th June, 2012 and applied for a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal. That the Respondent was granted stay of execution on condition that the sum of Ksh.500,000/= was deposited in a joint fixed deposit interest earning bank account in the names of the Advocates for the parties. The Applicants complaint is that since then the Respondent has not taken any steps to prosecute the Appeal.
3. The Respondent was served with the application as per the affidavit of service sworn by the process server, Patrick Juma Yuka on 11th July 2017. No papers were filed in opposition to the application. A notice of Preliminary Objection dated 4th September, 2017 was filed by the Respondent on 6th September, 2017 on the following grounds:
1. 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.
4. The application dated 29th June, 2017 was fixed for hearing by the Applicants. The Respondent was served with the said hearing date as per the affidavit of service sworn on 29th September, 2017 by the same process server. However, there was no attendance by the Respondent on the hearing date.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Applicants’ counsel. It is noted that the Appeal was filed more than five years ago. No step has been taken by the Respondent to prosecute the appeal. No affidavit has been filed by the Respondent to explain the difficulties, if any, faced by his side in prosecuting the Appeal. The Respondent had the responsibility of preparing the Record of Appeal in order for this court to give directions on whether to admit the Appeal in accordance with section 79B Civil Procedure Act. This court has inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, like in the instant case where a party files an Appeal and goes to sleep.
6. For the above stated reasons, the application is allowed with costs to the Applicants.
Date, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 31st day of Jan, 2018
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE