Francis Kamau Kangethe, Peter Muriithi Kungu, Samuel Kariuki Mwaura, Joseph Muigai Kamau, Peter Njuguna Chomba, Patrick Kariuki Mwangi, Margaret Wairimu Njaga, Mary Karugi t/a Mioro General Stores & Bibian Njeri Chege v Makenagira Farmer’s Trading Company Limited [2015] KEHC 96 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

CIVIL APPEAL CASE NO.551 OF 2012

FRANCIS KAMAU KANGETHE

PETER MURIITHI KUNGU

SAMUEL KARIUKI MWAURA

JOSEPH MUIGAI KAMAU

PETER NJUGUNA  CHOMBA

PATRICK KARIUKI MWANGI

MARGARET WAIRIMU NJAGA

MARY KARUGI T/A

MIORO GENERAL STORES

BIBIAN NJERI CHEGE……………….………APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

VERSUS

MAKENAGIRA FARMER’S TRADING

COMPANY   LIMITED ……………………RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS

RULING

This matter  originates  from the business Premises  Rent Tribunal’s Reference  and order  evicting the appellants from the respondent’s  premises   their tenancy having  allegedly  expired from 1st  November 2012.  The  appellants are the  tenants  whereas  the respondents  are the landlords.

By a ruling dated  11th December  2012, Honourable  Mary Angawa J granted  to the appellants a stay of execution  of the orders  of the Chairman, Business Premises Rent Tribunal.  She  granted an injunction  restraining   the eviction of the tenants  from the premises.  She also ordered  that the  appeal be heard on priority basis  and that  the record be deposited in court.  The record  shows that  on 13th April  2015  the rent  amounting to shs  110,000 was deposited in court by 5 tenants  and on 23rd June 2015  the respondent’s  counsels sought for  release of  the same.

However, by an  application dated 17th February 2015  the  respondents  had applied under the provisions  of Order 42 Rule  35(1) & (2) of the Civil Procedure  Rules to have this appeal dismissed  for want of prosecution  which application was dismissed  with costs  on 10th July 2015 for being incompetent  by Honourable Mabeya J.  It  was after the said  dismissal  order that the respondent’s counsel wrote to the Deputy Registrar of  this court  on 14th July 2015  urging the  Deputy Registrar  to place the file  before a Judge for dismissal under  Order  42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rule, 2010.

On 23rd July 2015  the Deputy  Registrar  directed by way of a note  that the  file be  listed before the Judge  but on 18th November  2015  the  respondent’s counsels through  a Mr Peter of Wanjama  and Company  Advocates  for the respondents appeared  in the registry and fixed this appeal exparte for mention before court this  day 7th December 2015.  They did not  indicate  the purpose of the mention.  When the matter was called  out today, the respondent’s  counsel Mrs Githaiga submitted  urging the  court to dismiss  the appeal  for want of  prosecution because the appellant  had not  given any reasons  why they  have not taken  any steps  to have the appeal  prosecuted.  She  charged that the appellants  were enjoying  stay orders  which stay is  prejudicial  to the respondents since  the appellants  were not  remitting  any rent to the  respondent  landlords  yet they  occupy the premises  and that  they are  using this appeal as an excuse not to pay  any rent  which is due   to the  respondents.  She also disclosed  that the  respondent has in the past tried  to have this  appeal dismissed  for want of prosecution  but that they  were not successful and the Deputy Registrar  did direct that the  matter  be listed  for dismissal.

In response , Mr Ngare  counsel for the appellants lamented that  he had  been ambushed with an application   for dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution yet  he had been served   with a  mention notice by the  respondent’s counsel.  Further, that  attempts to have this  appeal dismissed for  want of  prosecution have not been successful since it is  not  the appellant’s fault that the  appeal has not  been heard.  Mr Ngare  submitted  that albeit  he had not  been given notice to  show cause, it was mischievous for counsel for the respondents to seek dismissal  of the appeal based on no facts  at all of the appellants’ indolence  and that  in 2013  Honourable  Angawa J made  orders that  the Chairman of the Tribunal do avail the original  file to this court for  directions  on appeal  to be taken, which  has never been complied with.  Mr Ngare  submitted that the  Tribunal proceedings  are voluminous  and that only this court   can order for   the Tribunal records  to be availed  for directions to be taken, and  not to  dismiss this appeal prematurely.  In a brief rejoinder, Mrs Githaiga  submitted that the provisions of  Order 42 Rule 35  of the Civil procedure Rules empower this court to  dismiss  this appeal for want  of prosecution  and that  there was no evidence  that  the appellant  had written  to court or taken any steps  to have this appeal heard  thereby delaying the process  of litigation.  She urged the  court to dismiss the appeal  for want of prosecution.

I have considered the parties’ advocates rival submissions on this matter. Article  159(2) (b) of  the Constitution  calls upon the courts and tribunals in exercising  judicial authority to be guided  by the principles  among them, that “justice  shall not be delayed.” In addition, Sections 1A and 1B of  the Civil Procedure  Act oblige the courts to facilitate  the  just, expeditious, proportionate  and  affordable  resolution of the civil  disputes  governed  by the Act.  Parties  to the civil proceedings  or  advocates for such party(ies) are under  an obligation to assist  the court to further  the overriding  objectives  of the Act and, to that effect, to  participate  in the processes  of the  court and to comply with  the directions  and orders of the court.

Section 1B  of the Civil Procedure Act calls  upon the court  to handle  all matters presented  before it  for the purposes of  attaining  the following aims.

The just  determination of  the proceedings;

The efficient  disposal of the business of the court.

The efficient  use of the  available  judicial and administrative resources.

The timely disposal of the proceedings   and all other  proceedings  in the court, at a cost  affordable  by the respective  parties and

The issue of suitable technology.

From the above  provisions of the Constitution  and the Civil Procedure  Act, it is clear that the court is  called upon to expedite  the disposal of disputes before it.  It is for that reason that the procedures underpinnings of Order 17 Rule  1 and 2 ( applicable for original suits) and  Order 42  Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rule  for  appeals were enacted providing the procedure  for disposal of suits  and or appeals  that are  archived  in court without  any action being taken  to have the  matters disposed of.

This court notes  and indeed commends  the efforts made  by the respondent  herein who have  incessantly  sought  to have this appeal  out of the  courts to enable  them execute orders  of the Tribunal.  On  the last occasion, Honourable Mabeya  J did  on 19th July 2015 dismiss  their application  dated 17th February  2015 for being  incompetent  and  a few days later, they prompted  the Deputy Registrar  to list the matter before  a judge for  dismissal of the appeal.  But there is absolutely  no evidence that the mention for today as fixed by the  respondent’s counsel and not the Deputy Registrar, was meant  to be a notice to show cause upon the appellant  to demonstrate  why this  appeal should  not  be dismissed  for want to  prosecution  under Order  24 Rule 35 (2) of the Civil Procedure  Rules.  It is  clear that  it is the  respondents who  moved  the court, the same  way they did in February  2015  only that this  time round, they  have approached the  court  through a mention  notice  and not a formal application.  In my  view, that action by the respondent  however well  intended is an abuse of court process and moreover, the submissions  in support on  the mention which turned to be an application for dismissal of the appeal for want  of prosecution  are in essence  resjudicata  the ruling made by Honourable Mabeya J on 10th July 2015.  Trial by ambush  is abhorred  by the law  and the  courts cannot  encourage  it.  If  a party fixes a matter, say the mention, the purpose thereof  must  be disclosed.  Moreso in the mention notice  to the adverse party so that  they come to court prepared  to respond to any issues that  they may be required to  respond to.  To do  otherwise  would  in essence  be denying the appellant   a right to fair hearing  and therefore ousting them from  the judgment  seat and  access to  justice.  Courts  of law are  established  to be fair and just  and there  should be no  perception directed  at them that they are  unfair  and or unjust  in as much as the decision may go either way.  In this case, I  have no doubt in my mind  that  if  the Deputy Registrar  was to place the file  (appeal) herein before  a judge for  dismissal, the Deputy Registrar  would have  been put to task to issue  notice to  show cause to both parties  to the appeal as required   under Order 42 Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules which  provide:

(2) If, within one year after the  service if the Memorandum of Appeal, the appeal  shall not have been set down for hearing, the registrar shall on notice  to the parties  list the appeal before a judge in  chambers  for dismissal.

I reiterate that this appeal  was listed  by the respondent  for mention at which  stage  the respondent  turned it  into a  hearing of an oral  application for dismissal  for want of prosecution.  I must  also emphasise  that it is not  just  the provisions  of  Order 42  Rule 35 of  the Civil Procedure  Rule that  the respondent  can seek for dismissal  of an appeal for want of  prosecution, taking into account the overriding  objectives  of the Civil Procedure Act and Article  159(2) (b) of the Constitution  as well as the procedural steps  that ought to be taken by the appellant upon  filing of an appeal, as stipulated under Order 42 Rules  2-14 of the Civil Procedure Rules.  Under  Rule  15  of the said  Order 42 “1.  when  a Memorandum of Appeal is  lodged   the court to which such appeal  is preferred  shall send  notice  of the appeal to the  court from whose decree  the appeal is preferred.

2.  The court  receiving such notice  shall send  with all practicable  dispatch all material papers in the suit, or such papers  as may be  specially called for  by the court  to which such  appeal is preferred.

3.  Either party may on application and upon payment  of the requisite   charges obtain  copies of any such papers  as aforesaid.

In this  matter, the appeal  was filed on  23rd October  2012  Honourable Angawa J made  an  order for  the Executive Officer  of Business Premises Rent  Tribunal  case No. 12/2012 Nairobi to avail  the original   tribunal file.  On 13th December  2012  the Deputy  Registrar  issued  notice to show cause upon  the Executive Officer of Business Premises Rent Tribunal Nairobi.  On  17th September  2014 the record  also shows  that the Deputy Registrar  did issue notice  to the Business Premises Rent Tribunal to avail  to this court  the tribunals original file as per the  order of 11th April  2012  by Angawa J but todate  there has  been no response  from the Business premise Rent Tribunal and neither  have they availed the original file  to this court  to enable  this court to consider  this  appeal for  admission under Section 79B of the Civil Procedure  Act  or for giving   of directions  as stipulated  under Section 79C  of the Civil Procedure Act.

For the above  reasons  which the  record bears, I am  unable to find that  the appellants  have procrastinated  in having this  appeal heard.  I do not  find any inertia on the part of the appellants disclosed by the respondents  and I accordingly dismiss the application seeking to have this appeal dismissed  for want of prosecution.

I however make the following  orders for expedition:-

That the Executive Officer  of the Business Premise Rent Tribunal in Business Premise Rent Tribunal No. 12 of 2012 do appear in this court on 17th December 2015  with or without  the original  file thereof to explain  to this court reasons for delayed  submission of the tribunal file  to the High Court  despite reminders.

This  order be extracted  by the appellant’s counsel and served  upon the Executive  Officer of  Business Premise Rent Tribunal expeditiously and an  affidavit of service  filed before this ruling is typed.

Costs shall be in  the cause.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 7th day of December 2015.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

7/12/2015