[2024] KECA 844 (KLR)
The Court found that the appellants did not have an automatic right of appeal from the High Court's order and were required to obtain leave before appealing. Although the High Court granted leave to appeal, the appellants failed to seek leave of the Court of Appeal to file their notices and record of appeal out of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KECA 844 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Amerisource Limited; Appellant: Alex Mautia Morume; Respondent: Nation Media Group Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal (Application) 445 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Appeal for Being Filed Out of Time
- Outcome
- application allowed; appeal struck out with costs to the applicant
- Judges
- DK Musinga, SG Kairu, LA Achode
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Time Limits for Appeal, Striking Out Appeals
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Amerisource Limited
Appellant
Alex Mautia Morume
Appellant
Nation Media Group Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Appeal for Being Filed Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants' notices and record of appeal were filed out of time without leave of the Court.
- 2 Whether the High Court's grant of leave to appeal sufficed for purposes of filing the notice of appeal out of time.
- 3 Whether the appeal should be struck out for non-compliance with procedural rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the appellants did not have an automatic right of appeal from the High Court's order and were required to obtain leave before appealing. Although the High Court granted leave to appeal, the appellants failed to seek leave of the Court of Appeal to file their notices and record of appeal out of time. Rule 75(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules mandates that a notice of appeal be filed within fourteen days of the impugned decision. The notices and record of appeal were filed outside this period and without the requisite leave, rendering the appeal incompetent. The procedural requirements are mandatory, and non-compliance cannot be cured without proper leave. Consequently,...
Court Disposition
application allowed; appeal struck out with costs to the applicant
Orders
- The appeal is hereby struck out.
- Costs awarded to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Amerisource Limited & another v Nation Media Group Limited (Civil Appeal (Application) 445 of 2019) [2024] KECA 844 (KLR) (12 July 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KECA 844 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Civil Appeal (Application) 445 of 2019
DK Musinga, SG Kairu & LA Achode, JJA
July 12, 2024
Between
Amerisource Limited
1st Appellant
Alex Mautia Morume
2nd Appellant
and
Nation Media Group Limited
Respondent
(An application for leave to appeal out of time against the Ruling and Order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (J. K. Sergon, J.) delivered on 9th November 2018 in H.C.C.C. No. 253 of 2011)
Ruling
1. The applicant’s notice of motion dated 23rd January 2020 brought under rule 75(2) and (4), rule 82, 83 and 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010, seeks to strike out the 1st appellant’s notice of appeal filed on 19th September 2019, and the 2nd appellant’s notice of appeal filed on 10th July 2019 as they were filed out of time.
2. The applicant states, inter alia, that the impugned ruling sought to be appealed from was delivered on 9th November 2018; that on 16th November 2018 the appellants filed an application for leave to appeal the said ruling; that on 27th June 2019 the High Court granted leave to the appellants to appeal the said ruling and thereafter the 2nd appellant filed his notice of appeal; that the record of appeal dated 10th September 2019 on behalf of the 1st appellant is bad in law for want of a duly filed and served notice of appeal; and the 2nd appellant’s notice of appeal is bad in law as the same was filed out of time without leave of the court.
3. In response, the 2nd appellant, who is a director of the 1st appellant, contends that having been granted leave to appeal on 27th June 2019, he filed the notice of appeal on 10th July 2019 and served it on 16th July 2019; that time began to run when leave to appeal was granted; that the court registry misplaced the record of appeal after it was paid for on 10th September 2019, and it was served on 19th September 2019 after it was traced. In his view, therefore, the applicant’s application is unmerited.
4. When the application came up for hearing on 10th July 2024, there was no attendance on behalf of the appellants, although they had been served with a hearing notice and an affidavit of service filed accordingly.
5. Ms Jan Mohamed, Senior Counsel for the applicant, told the Court that the appellants’ suit before the High Court, which gave rise to the impugned ruling, was dismissed for want of prosecution in June 2024. She urged us to allow the application, as it was clear that the notice and record of appeal were filed out of time without leave.
6. We have considered the application, the response thereto, as well as the applicant’s written submissions. On 9th November 2018 the High Court (Sergon, J.) ordered that the authors of the documents identified as No.6 and 9 in the appellant’s bundle of documents be summoned to produce the same as exhibits in evidence. That is the order that the appellants sought to appeal from. The appellants did not have an automatic right of appeal. Under Order 43 rule 1 (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, leave was required before an appeal from the aforesaid order was mounted.
7. There is no dispute that the appellants never sought leave of this Court to appeal out of time. The High Court merely permitted the appellants to institute an appeal before this Court. Under rule 75 (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010, a notice of appeal should be filed within fourteen (14) days from the day of delivery of the impugned judgment or order. The notice and the record of appeal were therefore filed out of time and without leave of this Court.
8. Consequently, we allow this application, with the result that this appeal is hereby struck out with costs to the applicant.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 12TH DAY OF JULY 2024. D. K. MUSINGA (P)………………….………. JUDGE OF APPEALS. GATEMBU KAIRU, FCIArb.…………………….……….JUDGE OF APPEALL. ACHODE…………………….……….JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the originalSIGNED DEPUTY REGISTRAR