Ruling in Family Appeal No. E003of 2026 Julia Nyabola Vs Taiberius Oroni Juma
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
HIGH COURT FAMILY APPEAL NO. E003 OF 2026
JULIA NYABOLA………………….....................APPLICANT/ APPELLANT
VERSUS
TAIBERIUS ORONI JUMA...................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Before this Court for determination is a Chamber Summons application dated 7 th April 2026 brought by the Appellant/Applicant, Julia Nyabola. The Applicant fundamentally seeks an order for stay of implementation and execution of the lower court's ruling delivered on 30 th April 2026 in Busia Chief Magistrate’s Court Succession Cause No. 1028 of 2018 , which revoked her Certificate of Grant.
2. The core issue for determination today is not the intrinsic merits of that stay application, but rather the Applicant’s blatant failure to comply with mandatory procedural directions issued by this Court to guide the resolution of the matter.
3. On 12 th May 2026 , this Court considered the Chamber Summons and the urgency certified by counsel. To ensure an expedited, just, and fair hearing, the Court issued clear, time-bound case management directions under its hand.
4. The directions specifically mandated the following milestones:
o The Application was to be heard on the merits via filed written submissions.
o The Applicant was ordered to serve the Application upon the Respondent within seven (7) days (by 19th May 2026).
o The Applicant was strictly directed to file and serve her written submissions, not exceeding five (5) pages, within twenty-one (21) days (by 2nd June 2026).
o A definitive date for this Ruling was set for 27th August 2026 .
5. A review of the court record reveals a total baseline failure by the Applicant to step into these requirements. The Applicant failed to serve the Application upon the Respondents or file her written submissions within the 21-day window, or at all, and offered no formal communication or explanation to account for this gridlock.
6. The power of this Court to strictly enforce its orders is an anchor for the administration of justice. Under Order 17 Rule 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules , this Court holds explicit, clear powers to dismiss an application or an entire suit where a party fails to comply with its procedural directions.
7. These statutory provisions are reinforced by the overriding objectives set out in Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act , which require courts to facilitate the efficient, cost-effective, and expeditious disposal of cases. Litigation cannot be left to stall at the whim of an inactive party.
8. This position was deeply anchored by the High Court in the recent precedent of Mungatana v Standard Limited & 3 others [2025] KEHC 137 (KLR) . The High Court reaffirmed that
“where a party fails to comply with court orders and directions without providing a substantiated, validated explanation, the court must dismiss their applications or suits. This aggressive sanction is necessary to prevent holding the opposing party hostage and causing them severe, unfair prejudice”.
9. In this instance, the Applicant moved the court claiming extreme urgency to stall execution below. Yet, after receiving directions on 12 th May 2026, the Applicant treated those mandatory orders with total levity. Equity assists the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. 4.
Conclusion and Determination
10. Owing to the Applicant’s failure to comply with the directions dated 12 th May 2026, to serve the Application upon the Respondent and file and serve her written submissions within the strict timelines, and since no explanation or application for an extension of time has been tendered, her operational omissions squarely trigger the statutory sanctions built into Order 17 Rule 2(4) .
11. Under Order 17 Rule 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court has explicit powers to dismiss a suit or an application for non-compliance with its directions
12. The Court will not tolerate historical lethargy or selective compliance. The Chamber Summons application cannot survive judicial scrutiny in the face of such structural defiance.
13. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to make the final resultant Orders;
i. The Chamber Summons Application dated 7 th April 2026 is hereby DISMISSED with finality for gross non-compliance with Court directions under Order 17 Rule 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
ii. The Appellant shall set down the Appeal for Admission and hearing within the next sixty (60) days
iii. No Costs are awarded bearing in mind the Application was undefended.
It is so ordered
Signed, Dated and Delivered at Busia
on this 27 th Day of August 2026 .
__________________________
Mohochi S. M.
Presiding Judge
2
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
HIGH COURT FAMILY APPEAL NO. E003 OF 2026
JULIA NYABOLA………………….....................APPLICANT/ APPELLANT
VERSUS
TAIBERIUS ORONI JUMA...................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Before this Court for determination is a Chamber Summons application dated 7 th April 2026 brought by the Appellant/Applicant, Julia Nyabola. The Applicant fundamentally seeks an order for stay of implementation and execution of the lower court's ruling delivered on 30 th April 2026 in Busia Chief Magistrate’s Court Succession Cause No. 1028 of 2018 , which revoked her Certificate of Grant.
2. The core issue for determination today is not the intrinsic merits of that stay application, but rather the Applicant’s blatant failure to comply with mandatory procedural directions issued by this Court to guide the resolution of the matter.
3. On 12 th May 2026 , this Court considered the Chamber Summons and the urgency certified by counsel. To ensure an expedited, just, and fair hearing, the Court issued clear, time-bound case management directions under its hand.
4. The directions specifically mandated the following milestones:
o The Application was to be heard on the merits via filed written submissions.
o The Applicant was ordered to serve the Application upon the Respondent within seven (7) days (by 19th May 2026).
o The Applicant was strictly directed to file and serve her written submissions, not exceeding five (5) pages, within twenty-one (21) days (by 2nd June 2026).
o A definitive date for this Ruling was set for 27th August 2026 .
5. A review of the court record reveals a total baseline failure by the Applicant to step into these requirements. The Applicant failed to serve the Application upon the Respondents or file her written submissions within the 21-day window, or at all, and offered no formal communication or explanation to account for this gridlock.
6. The power of this Court to strictly enforce its orders is an anchor for the administration of justice. Under Order 17 Rule 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules , this Court holds explicit, clear powers to dismiss an application or an entire suit where a party fails to comply with its procedural directions.
7. These statutory provisions are reinforced by the overriding objectives set out in Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act , which require courts to facilitate the efficient, cost-effective, and expeditious disposal of cases. Litigation cannot be left to stall at the whim of an inactive party.
8. This position was deeply anchored by the High Court in the recent precedent of Mungatana v Standard Limited & 3 others [2025] KEHC 137 (KLR) . The High Court reaffirmed that
“where a party fails to comply with court orders and directions without providing a substantiated, validated explanation, the court must dismiss their applications or suits. This aggressive sanction is necessary to prevent holding the opposing party hostage and causing them severe, unfair prejudice”.
9. In this instance, the Applicant moved the court claiming extreme urgency to stall execution below. Yet, after receiving directions on 12 th May 2026, the Applicant treated those mandatory orders with total levity. Equity assists the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. 4.
Conclusion and Determination
10. Owing to the Applicant’s failure to comply with the directions dated 12 th May 2026, to serve the Application upon the Respondent and file and serve her written submissions within the strict timelines, and since no explanation or application for an extension of time has been tendered, her operational omissions squarely trigger the statutory sanctions built into Order 17 Rule 2(4) .
11. Under Order 17 Rule 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court has explicit powers to dismiss a suit or an application for non-compliance with its directions
12. The Court will not tolerate historical lethargy or selective compliance. The Chamber Summons application cannot survive judicial scrutiny in the face of such structural defiance.
13. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to make the final resultant Orders;
i. The Chamber Summons Application dated 7 th April 2026 is hereby DISMISSED with finality for gross non-compliance with Court directions under Order 17 Rule 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
ii. The Appellant shall set down the Appeal for Admission and hearing within the next sixty (60) days
iii. No Costs are awarded bearing in mind the Application was undefended.
It is so ordered
Signed, Dated and Delivered at Busia
on this 27 th Day of August 2026 .
__________________________
Mohochi S. M.
Presiding Judge
2