[2023] KECA 543 (KLR)

[2023] KECA 543 (KLR)

The Court found that the applicants had not lodged a notice of appeal with the superior court as required by Rule 77(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The absence of this jurisdictional document meant that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for extension of time. The Court emphasized...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KECA 543 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joram Amollo; Applicant: Antony Chege Mwangi; Applicant: Joseph Ngigi Mbugua; Applicant: Jane Njoki Mwangi; Applicant: Jane Muthinda Kimeu; Applicant: Simon Waititu Ndungú; Applicant: Bernard Kimunya; Respondent: Ngaruiya Chege; Respondent: Athi Water Services Board
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E070 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
application struck out for want of jurisdiction
Judges
KI Laibuta
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Jurisdiction of Court
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Jurisdiction of Court

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joram Amollo

Applicant

Antony Chege Mwangi

Applicant

Joseph Ngigi Mbugua

Applicant

Jane Njoki Mwangi

Applicant

Jane Muthinda Kimeu

Applicant

Simon Waititu Ndungú

Applicant

Bernard Kimunya

Applicant

Ngaruiya Chege

Respondent

Athi Water Services Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants complied with the mandatory requirement to lodge a notice of appeal within the prescribed time period.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a duly lodged notice of appeal deprives the Court of jurisdiction to entertain the application for extension of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicants had not lodged a notice of appeal with the superior court as required by Rule 77(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The absence of this jurisdictional document meant that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for extension of time. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction is foundational and cannot be assumed or conferred by the parties or the Court itself. As a result, the application was incompetent and had to be struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

application struck out for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The applicants' undated Notice of Motion is struck out as incompetent.