Hadijah Nalongo Kizirimpa v Kambugu Isaac (HCT-01-LD-CA-0006-2020; HCT-01-LD-MA-0063-2024)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The High Court struck out an application to reinstate a dismissed appeal on the ground that service of the application was not effected within the mandatory twenty-one day period prescribed by Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court held that the failure to serve within the statutory period, without seeking extension of time, rendered the application incompetent. Even on the merits, the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-prosecution, as medical records did not support her claim of illness and she showed a lack of diligence in following up on her appeal.
Outcome
Application struck out; dismissed appeal remains dismissed
Facts
The applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 0006 of 2020 on 7 February 2020 challenging a Chief Magistrate's judgment. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 18 May 2023. The applicant claimed she was unaware of the dismissal due to the national lockdown, serious illness in 2021, and her advocate from the Legal Aid Clinic becoming unreachable and subsequently being appointed to the Bench. She discovered the dismissal in June 2024 and filed an application to reinstate the appeal on 15 August 2024. The application was endorsed by court on 3 September 2024 but was not served on the respondent until 23 February 2026, over one year later. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that service was not effected within the mandatory twenty-one day period under Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Issues
- Whether the preliminary objection on improper and delayed service is meritorious and capable of disposing of the application.
- Whether sufficient cause has been shown to warrant the setting aside of the order dismissing Civil Appeal No. 0006 of 2020 and its reinstatement.
Orders
- Application struck out for being incompetent.
- Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Judicature Act Cap 16 s.33
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
- Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 Rule 14
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rules 1 and 3
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 Rule 1(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 Rule 1(3)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 Rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 Rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 49 Rule 2
Cases cited (6)
- Gideon Mosa Onchwati v Kenya Oil Co. Ltd & Another [2017] KLR 650
- Edirisa Kanonya and Another v Asuman Nsubuga & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 373 of 2022)
- Bitamisi Namuddu v Rwabuganda Geoffrey (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 016 of 2014)
- James Andate Okanya v New Vision Printing & Publishing Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause No. 250 of 2021)
- Fredrick James Juju and Another v Madhivani Group Ltd and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 688 of 2015)
- M.M. Sheikh Dawood v Kenshwala and Sons (High Court Civil Suit No. 14 of 2009)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.