Solomon Ouko Onyango v Amedo Centre (K) Limited [2019] KECA 626 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal application because the litigant gave an unreachable address and did nothing to pursue his case for nearly two years.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an application can be dismissed for non-attendance when the hearing notice was not served upon the applicant
- 2.Whether the application should be dismissed for want of diligence and non-prosecution where the applicant failed to give a reliable contact address and made no effort to prosecute the application
Key legal issues
#Whether dismissal for non-attendance is permissible absent service of a hearing notice
Dismissal for non-attendance is procedurally impermissible where the hearing notice was never served; the court therefore did not dismiss on that ground alone.
The court noted the application had been listed four times but the applicant could not be traced for service on any occasion. It held that procedural fairness requires service of a hearing notice before dismissal for non-attendance, so the dismissal had to rest on other grounds - namely want of prosecution and failure to facilitate service.
Whether an application may be dismissed for want of prosecution and failure to give a reliable address for service
Yes. A litigant must give a reliable and effective contact address and must actively pursue prosecution of the application; failure to do so justifies dismissal and striking off.
The applicant filed in July 2017 but made no effort for nearly two years to trace or prosecute the application, despite giving a contact address and telephone number through which he could not be reached. The court held that the continued existence of such an application merely clogs the wheels of justice and creates backlog, warranting dismissal with liberty to seek reinstatement.
Legal principles established
#- An application or suit may be dismissed for non-attendance only where the hearing notice was served on the party
- A litigant is duty bound to give a reliable and effective contact address for service of court processes and to constantly monitor and pursue the prosecution of his case
Court orders
#- 1.Civil Application No. 71 of 2017 is dismissed and struck off the record
- 2.The applicant is at liberty to make an application for re-instatement
- 3.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over applications for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal out of time
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal out of time
The application had not been prosecuted for almost two years; the applicant failed to give a reliable and effective contact address for service and made no effort to prosecute the application, which clogged the wheels of justice
Costs
The costs of this application be and is hereby awarded to the Respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Procedurally, an application or suit can be dismissed for non-attendance only when the hearing notice was served upon a party.
It is incumbent upon a litigant to constantly monitor and pursue the prosecution of his/her application, suit or appeal before a court of law.
The continued existence of the present application in the court system is simply to clog the wheels of justice and create an unnecessary backlog.
I hereby order and direct that Civil Application No. 71 of 2017 be and is hereby dismissed and struck off the record. The applicant shall be at liberty to make an application for re-instatement.
Issues in the judgment
#The respondent is not named anywhere in the judgment; only 'the respondent' is used, and the underlying appeal (from which the extension-of-time application arises) is not identified
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Solomon Ouko Onyango v Amedo Centre (K) Limited [2019] KECA 626 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Application No. 71 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/626/eng@2019-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.