Francis Egosangwa Kaguli v Barusi Kaguli [2014] KECA 21 (KLR)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

AT KISUMU

(CORAM:MUSINGA, JA.)

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 40 OF 2012

BETWEEN

FRANCIS EGOSANGWA  KAGULI........................APPELLANT/APPLICANT

VERSUS

BARUSI KAGULI .................................................................... RESPONDENT

(Being an application  for leave to appeal as a pauper)

in

H.C.C. A. No.   80 of 2008)

******************

RULING

By an application  dated  18th October,  2012, the applicant  sought  the following orders:

"1. That    leave    be    hereby    granted     to     the appellant/applicant to sue in  formal pauperis in terms of the annexed statement and affidavit.

2. That   the   applicant/appellant  (sic)  proposed record of appeal be deemed  as duly  filed upon granting leave to sue as a pauper."

The application  was brought  under Order  LI  rule 1 and  XXXIII  rules 1, 2 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.

When the application  first came up for hearing on 23rd October, 2013, Otieno,  JA, rightly  pointed  out  that  under  rule 115  (2)  of the  Court  of Appeal  Rules, the  Registrar is required to be heard on such an application, which  ought   to  have  been  brought   under  rule  115  (1)  of  this  Court's Rules.    He therefore  directed  that  the  application   be  placed  before  the Deputy Registrar to state  his position on the same.

The  record shows  that  on  the  same  day  the  applicant   appeared before  Mr. H. Adika,  Deputy  Registrar,  who  heard  the  applicant   and perused  the application.   He was satisfied that  the applicant,  being a blind man  with  no  means  of survival, genuinely  deserved   to  benefit  from  the provisions of rule 115  (1) of this Court's  Rules. The rules states  as follows:

"115. (1) If in any appeal  from a superior court, in its original or appellate jurisdiction in any civil case the  Court is satisfied  on  the application  of an appellant  that  he  lacks the  means  to  pay  the required  fees or to deposit the security  for costs and  that  the  appeal is not  without  reasonable possibility  of success, the  Court may  by  order direct that the appeal may be lodged-

(a)  without prior payment of fees of Court, or on payment  of any specified  amount  less than the required  fees;

(b)  without security  for costs being lodged, or on lodging    of any  specified   sum  less  than  the amount   fixed by  rule 107, and may  order that the record of appeal be prepared by the registrar of the superior court without  payment  therefor or on  payment  of any specified  sum  less  than the fee set out in the Second Schedule, conditionally on the intended  appellant undertaking to pay the fees or the balance of the fees  out   of  any  money   or  properly   he  may recover in or consequence of the appeal."

When the applicant appeared before this Court for the  hearing  of the application,  he   told   the   Court   that   the   respondent's  advocates, M/S Musiega & Company,  had  been  served  with a hearing  notice  but they  had not attended Court.  The respondent had  however  filed a replying  affidavit on 17th October, 2013.  The respondent stated, inter alia, that  the  applicant is not  a  pauper  as  he  has  previously  engaged the  firm of D.C. Chitwa & Company  Advocates  who  represented him at  the  High Court  during  the hearing  of the first appeal. The respondent further  stated that  the intended appeal had  no chance of success because the  judgment that  is sought to be challenged was delivered  on  21st March, 2012  and  the  notice  of appeal was filed on 4th May, 2012, which was outside the  prescribed  period  of filing such a notice.

Having considered the  application, I am  satisfied  that  the  applicant, being  a poor  blind man, lacks the  means  to pay the  required  court fees.   He is also  not able  to  prepare the  record  of appeal on  his own.  The advocate who  had  acted  for  him in the  High Court  matter  did  so  pro bono and  he does not  seem  to  be  interested in representing the  applicant any further. The  applicant  is  also   unable   to   deposit  the   security   for  costs   that   is ordinarily  required  to be deposited under rule 107 of this Court's Rules.

Consequently, i    direct   that   the   appeal  be   lodged    without   prior payment of Court fees and  security  for costs.  The record of appeal shall be prepared by the  Deputy  Registrar of the  High Court free of charge.

However, the  applicant having  filed  his notice  of appeal out  of time and  without   leave  of  the  Court,  must  make  the  appropriate  application within twenty one days from the date of delivery of this ruling for court's consideration and  determination, one  way or  the  other.    Each party shall bear its own costs of this application.

Dated and Delivered at Kisumu this 17th day of January 2014

D.K. MUSINGA

..................................

JUDGE OF APPEAL