[2018] KEHC 483 (KLR)
The court found that the appellants' explanations for non-compliance with the court order were inconsistent and not forthright. However, considering that the record of appeal had been filed and in the interest of justice, the court exercised its discretion to reinstate the appeal. The court held that the failure to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 483 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Simon Karuku Mwangi; Appellant: Gladys Wanjiku Mwangi; Respondent: Netsel Kenya Limited; Respondent: Martin Nyamal Kavuna
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 645 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Appeal
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part; appeal reinstated; extension of time granted; costs to respondents.
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Appeal, Non Compliance With Court Orders, Extension of Time, Judicial Discretion
- 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
Simon Karuku Mwangi
Appellant
Gladys Wanjiku Mwangi
Appellant
Netsel Kenya Limited
Respondent
Martin Nyamal Kavuna
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Reinstate Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be reinstated after dismissal for failure to fix for directions within the court-ordered period.
- 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for non-compliance with the court order.
- 3 Whether extension of time to fix the appeal for directions should be granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellants' explanations for non-compliance with the court order were inconsistent and not forthright. However, considering that the record of appeal had been filed and in the interest of justice, the court exercised its discretion to reinstate the appeal. The court held that the failure to fix the appeal for directions within the stipulated time was not a mere technicality but a breach of a court order. Nevertheless, to avoid undue prejudice and to facilitate substantive justice, the court extended the time for fixing the appeal for directions by a further 30 days from the date of the ruling. Costs of the application were awarded to the respondents.
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part; appeal reinstated; extension of time granted; costs to respondents.
Orders
- The appeal is reinstated.
- Time to fix the appeal for directions is extended by 30 days from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2012
SIMON KARUKU MWANGI.....................................1ST APPELLANT
GLADYS WANJIKU MWANGI................................2ND APPELLANT
VERSUS
NETSEL KENYA LIMITED...................................1ST RESPONDENT
MARTIN NYAMAL KAVUNA...............................2ND RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the decision and decree of the ChiefMagistrate’sCourtNairobi CMCC No. 5635 of 2010
by Honourable P.W. Wasike, R.M. on 2nd November, 2012)
RULING
The application before the court for determination is the Notice of Motion dated the 9th May 2018 seeking orders that the court order made on the 14th day of December 2017 that the Appeal stands dismissed if a mention date for direction is not obtained within 15 days of filing of the Record of Appeal on the 31st January, 2018 be set aside and/or reviewed, that the court grants extension of time within which to comply with the fixing of the Appeal for directions and the court do reinstate the Appeal.
The application is premised on the grounds on the body of the same and its supported by the affidavit sworn by Gladys Wanjiku Mwangi, on 9th May, 2018. It is deponed that, on the 14th day of December 2017, the court directed the Appellant to file the Record of Appeal on or before the 31st of January, 2018 which order was complied with. That the Appellant was not aware that the court further directed that the Appeal be listed for directions within 15 days after filing of the Record of Appeal failing which it would stand dismissed, hence the 2nd limb of the order was not complied with.
That, after filing the Record, the Appellant’s counsel fixed the matter for mention on the 18th day of April 2018 and on the said date, the court indicated that there was no pending Appeal as the same stood dismissed when the Appellant failed to fix it for directions within the time ordered by the court.
The Appellant has urged the court to grant the orders sought and reinstate the Appeal for hearing.
The Respondents filed grounds of opposition on the 28th day of June, 2018. The application is opposed on the grounds that; it is incompetent, misconceived, bad in law, incurably defective and devoid of any merits, that the orders sought are untenable and are based on a grave misconception of the law and fact and that the same is an abuse of the court.
The court has considered the application, the grounds of opposition and the submissions filed herein. The reason given by the Appellant in the supporting affidavit for failure to comply with the court order is that he was not aware of that limb of the order. However, in the submissions, the Appellants averred that they were not able to comply with the court order because they could not get a date in the registry within the 15 days given by the court, due to constraints in the court diary. This shows that the Appellant is not being forthright to the court.
The Appellant in his submissions has relied on the case of Chetar Lalit Kumar Vakharia & Another Vs. Dr. S.O. Owinga where the court held as follows;
“The court has to do justice between the parties without due regard to technicalities of procedure. That is, however, not to say that procedural improprieties are to be ignored altogether. The court has to weigh the prejudice that is likely to be suffered by the offending party if the court strikes out the document. The court in that regard exercised judicial discretion.”
I wish, however, to point out that what we are dealing with in this case is not a technicality but a court order which was not complied with and the reason given for non compliance is not clear, as the court has noted herein above. In the interest of justice and noting that the appellant has filed the record of Appeal, its only fair that the Appeal be reinstated and time within which to fix the matter for directions be extended for a further 30 days from the date of this ruling. And it is so ordered.
The costs of the Application are awarded to the Respondent.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi this 4th day of October, 2018
.........................
L. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
..................For the Appellants
..............For the Respondents