Karirimbi & 3 others v Gachoki (Environment and Land Appeal 6 of 2018) [2022] KEELC 3019 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kerugoya dismissed an appeal the appellants sat on for three years, warning that Covid-19 was no excuse for delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application was premature for want of directions under Order 42 rule 13
Directions under Order 42 rule 13(4) had in fact been given by the Deputy Registrar on May 31, 2018, so the application was competent
The court perused the notice dated May 31, 2018 showing the Deputy Registrar directed the appellants to prepare and file the record of appeal, serve respondents and fix the matter for directions. The appellants neither complied with nor explained their failure to comply with those directions, so the objection of prematurity failed.
Whether the Covid-19 pandemic excused the delay in prosecuting the appeal
No - court stations continued operating virtually under practice directions issued by the Chief Justice in 2020, so the pandemic did not justify the delay
While the pandemic interrupted normal operations, courts countrywide continued handling matters virtually pursuant to the Chief Justice's practice directions, and the court itself conducted matters observing the Ministry of Health guidelines. The appellants could therefore have prosecuted their appeal during the pandemic period.
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution
Yes - the appellants were indolent, lost interest, and the respondent could not be deprived of the fruits of his judgment
The appellants failed to file the record of appeal for nearly three years after admission of the appeal, were served but did not attend the mention of October 1, 2019, and did not file the record of appeal even after the dismissal application was served. Such inordinate and unexplained indolence warranted dismissal with costs.
Legal principles established
#- A respondent may apply for dismissal of an appeal where the appellant fails to set down the appeal within three months of directions under rule 13, or where the appeal is not set down within one year of service of the memorandum of appeal
- A court of equity does not aid the indolent but the vigilant; Covid-19 did not excuse non-compliance since courts continued operating virtually
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated May 7, 2021 is allowed as prayed
- 2.The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Civil Procedure Rules, Order 42 Rules 13, 35(1) and 35(2)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karirimbi & 3 others v Gachoki (Environment and Land Appeal 6 of 2018) [2022] KEELC 3019 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3019/eng@2022-05-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.