[2018] KEHC 2031 (KLR)
The court found that the appellants had not taken the necessary steps to prosecute the appeal after filing the memorandum of appeal, as required by Order 42 Rules 11-13 of the Civil Procedure Rules. However, the court held that dismissal for want of prosecution under Rule 35 is premature unless directions under Rule...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 2031 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Samuel Mbugua Nganga; Appellant: David Gachui Maina; Respondent: Alice Wangu Maina
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Naivasha
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 1 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with conditions
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Appeal Procedure, Order 42 Rules, 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
Samuel Mbugua Nganga
Appellant
David Gachui Maina
Appellant
Alice Wangu Maina
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 inaction by the appellants.
- 2 Whether the application for dismissal is premature given the procedural requirements under Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellants had not taken the necessary steps to prosecute the appeal after filing the memorandum of appeal, as required by Order 42 Rules 11-13 of the Civil Procedure Rules. However, the court held that dismissal for want of prosecution under Rule 35 is premature unless directions under Rule 13 have been given, which had not occurred in this case due to the unavailability of lower court proceedings. As such, the application to dismiss the appeal was dismissed. Nonetheless, to balance the interests of justice and ensure the appellants actively pursue the appeal, the court ordered the appellants to pay 50% of the decretal sum to the respondent within thirty days,...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with conditions
Orders
- The application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution is dismissed.
- The appellants shall pay 50% of the decretal sum to the respondent within thirty (30) days from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIVASHA
CORAM: R MWONGO, J
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1OF 2016
(Being an Appeal from the Judgment delivered on 8th December, 2015 in Engineer SRMCC No 27 of 2014, (Hon. Martin Mutegi – SRM)
SAMUEL MBUGUA NGANGA................1ST APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
DAVID GACHUI MAINA.........................2ND APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
-VERSUS-
ALICE WANGU MAINA...................................RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
RULING
1. This is an application brought under section 3A the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It seeks that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution and that the costs of the entire application and appeal be awarded to the respondents.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Kennedy Achieng Owuor who has deposed that the judgment in the lower court was entered on 8th December, 2015 and served on the defendant on 16th December, 2015.
3. Thereafter the memorandum of appeal was then filed on 18th December 2015, but since then the appellants have failed to prosecute the appeal. As such the appellants are not keen to have the appeal heard and determined.
4. The applicant accuses the appellants of laches and of causing the respondent undue hardship; and prays that the appeal be dismissed since litigation cannot continue ad infinitum.
5. Although the applicants have not annexed any evidence to their application, the court has seen the Memorandum of appeal filed on 29th January, 2016, and has noted that there are no other filings or proceedings since that time except the present application and response thereto.
6. In his oral submissions, Mr Owuor for the applicant pointed out that the applicant has been unfairly kept away from enjoying the fruits of the judgment in the lower court, and that no security deposit has been paid to them or into court.
7. The appellants filed a Replying affidavit deposed by Kinyanjui Theuri, their advocate, who deponed that they wrote to Engineer Law Courts vide a letter dated 15th June 2017 seeking to have the proceedings typed to enable them to file the record of appeal, and a reminder dated 28th June 2017. Both letters are attached to the affidavit.
8. Mr Kinyanjui argues that the parties were negotiating a settlement but that the applicants declined the offer in April, 2017.
9. In his oral submissions, Mr Kariuki stated that directions under Order 42 Rule 35 cannot be given until the court has admitted the appeal under section 79B of the Civil Procedure Act, and that if the application is allowed the appellant will lose their constitutional right of appeal.
10. I have considered the application and the parties’ arguments carefully, and agree with the respondent.
11. The procedures for appeals are treated under Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 11 requires the Appellant to cause the matter to be listed before a judge, within thirty days of filing, for directions under section 79B of the Civil Procedure Act. If a judge refuses to reject the appeal, then under Rule 12 the Registrar shall notify the appellant who, shall serve the memorandum of appeal within seven days on every respondent. Rule 13 then kicks in and requires the Appellant within twenty one days of service of the memorandum, to cause the appeal to be listed for directions
12. In this matter, none of the steps under Order 42 Rules 11 -13 have been taken. The appellants have not submitted any evidence that, after filing the Memorandum of appeal, they have themselves taken any interest in pursuing the proceedings or record of appeal. And this is perhaps because of the condition created by Rule 35 which requires the giving of directions under Rule 13 before dismissal action can be taken. To that extent, the application herein is premature.
13. This situation will persist unless and until the lower court proceedings become available to the appellants. As a result, the appeal herein cannot be listed before a Judge for directions under Section 79B as there is no Judgment or Ruling of the lower court before the judge to enable him to consider it for summary rejection.
Disposition
14. The application is dismissed.
15. However, in order to ensure that the appellant takes measures to keenly follow up the proceedings and ensure the record of appeal is filed, and in the interests of justice, I order as follows:
a. The appellants shall pay 50% of the decretal sum to the respondents in the appeal being the judgment creditor within thirty (30) days from the date hereof;
b. Liberty to apply is hereby given.
16. Costs shall be in the cause..
Orders accordingly.
Dated and Delivered at Naivasha this 22nd Day of November, 2018
_____________________
RICHARD MWONGO
JUDGE
Delivered in the presence of:
1. Mr. Owuor for the Respondent.
2. Appellants – Not represented.
3. Court Clerk – Quinter Ogutu