[2000] KECA 203 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court's decision to determine the appeal solely on the basis of written submissions, without an oral hearing, was a fundamental breach of the Civil Procedure Rules. Order XLI rule 13 mandates that appeals be heard orally, with both parties given the opportunity to present their...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KECA 203 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Charles Gichina Mwangi; Respondent: Henry Mukora Mwangi
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 180 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree set aside; matter remitted for rehearing de novo; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Appeals Procedure, Trusts in Land, Land Consolidation
- 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
Charles Gichina Mwangi
Appellant
Henry Mukora Mwangi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal without an oral hearing, relying solely on written submissions.
- 2 Whether the plea of res judicata was properly determined by the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court's decision to determine the appeal solely on the basis of written submissions, without an oral hearing, was a fundamental breach of the Civil Procedure Rules. Order XLI rule 13 mandates that appeals be heard orally, with both parties given the opportunity to present their arguments in person. The learned judge's failure to conduct an oral hearing meant that no valid judgment could be rendered. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the High Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing before a different judge. The substantive issue of res judicata was not determined, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree set aside; matter remitted for rehearing de novo; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The judgment and decree of Owuor J dated 25th June, 1998 are set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: KWACH , SHAH & KEIWUA, JJ.A CIVIL APPEAL NO. 180 OF 1999
BETWEEN
CHARLES GICHINA MWANGI .................................................... APPELLANT
AND
HENRY MUKORA MWANGI ....................................................... RESPONDENT
(Being an Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Hon. Lady Justice Owuor) dated 25th June, 1998 in H.C.C.C. NO. 128 OF 1992) *****************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
This is an appeal from the decision ofOwuor J (as she then was) dated 25th June, 1998 by which she dismissed an appeal brought by Charles Gichina Mwangi (the appellant) .
Henry Mukora Mwangi (the respondent)filed a suit against the appellant in the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Thika in 1991 seeking a declaration that the appellant held 15 acres which form part of the appellant’s plot Land Parcel Loc 16/KIGORO/197in trust for him. The appellant and the respondent are brothers. The disputed piece of land was once part of a much larger parcel of land (75 acres) owned by their late father. It would appear that during land consolidation the appellant allocated to himself 45 acres leaving only 30 acres for the respondent. He said he was entitled to a lion’s share of their father’s land because he was the eldest son. In his defence the appellant denied the respondent’s claim and pleaded that the respondent’s claim was res judicata .
The learned Magistrate rejected the appellant’s plea of res judicata and ordered that the 15 acres be shared between the appellant and the respondent. This would give each party 7½ acres. It was against this decision that the appellant appealed to the Superior Court.
In her short judgment dated 25th June, 1998 the learned Judge rejected the appellant’s plea of res judicata and dismissed his appeal. She was of the opinion that the relevant proceedings on which the plea of res judicata was based had not been produced in evidence. If that was the only issue in this appeal, we would have had no difficulty in arriving at a decision on the point. When the appeal came up for hearing before the learned Judge on 15th July, 1996 the following order was made by consent-
“By consent appeal be argued by way of written submissions. Mr Mutunga to hand over his written submissions to Mr. Njuguna on or b efore 30th July, 1996. Mr Mutunga do repay and hand over his written submission to on or before 15th August, 1996. Mr Mutunga be at liberty to reply. Mention on 17th September, 1996 when judgment date will be set.”
The decision by the learned Judge that the appeal be argued by way of written submissions constituted a serious breach of the rules of procedure. There is no provision in the Civil Procedure Rules which permits the Court to hear an appeal by way of written submissions. Order XL1 rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides-
“13 (1) On the day fixed, or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant shall be heard in support of the appeal.
(2) The Court shall then, if it does not dismiss the appeal at once, hear the respondent against the appeal, and in such case the appellant shall be entitled to reply.”
The rule is simple and clear and leaves no room for hearing of an appeal by written submissions. The fact of the matter is that the learned Judge never heard the appeal. What she wrote was not a judgment because she could only write a judgment after hearing the appeal, which she did not. In the circumstances it would be a travesty of justice to allow her decision to stand. It must be set aside.
In the result we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of Owuor J (as she then was) dated 25th June, 1998 and order that the appeal lodged in the superior court by the appellant namely H.C.C. Appeal No 128 of 1992 be heard de novo by any Judge. As the point upon which this appeal has been decided was abandoned by counsel for the appellant, we make no order as to costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 12th day of May, 2000.
R. O. KWACH
------------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A. B. SHAH
-------------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
M. OLE KEIWUA
------------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true
copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR