|Civil Appeal 72 of 2003
|James Maina v David Wanjohi Kamau
|10 Dec 2007
|High Court at Eldoret
|Mohammed Khadhar Ibrahim
|James Maina v David Wanjohi Kamau  eKLR
[Ruling] Civil Practice and Procedure-appeal-application to reinstate the appeal-times when a party is bound by the actions or omissions of their Counsel -where the applicant’s advocate claimed he had difficulties getting instructions from his client-whether the applicant was free of blame-whether the appeal had much chance of success
|The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
CIVIL APPEAL 72 OF 2003
DAVID WANJOHI KAMAU……………...…………..RESPONDENT
I have considered the application for reinstatement of the Appeal. The Appeal does not have much chance of success considering the record. There are many times when a party is bound by the actions or omissions of their Counsel. In this case I did not see that the Applicant is entirely free of blame for the reasons for the dismissal. His own advocate states that they had difficulties getting instructions from their client.
The applicant has other remedies. The Respondent has been kept out of his just income from his property. There is no permanency in a tenancy. In this case, no rent has been paid since 1992. The Applicant cannot expect to avoid payment of rent on the basis he has other claims or judgments in other suits.
Application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET ON THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER