[2004] KEHC 1127 (KLR)
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunals Act restricts appeals from the Appeals Committee to the High Court strictly to points of law, and that no further appeal lies to the Court of Appeal. The appellant had already been denied relief by the High Court on the basis that no point of law was raised. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1127 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Charles Kahura Wamwara; Respondent: Hannah Waweru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 357 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and to Act in Person
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- ARM Visram
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Appeals on Point of Law, Jurisdiction of High Court, Land Disputes Tribunals Act
- 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 Kahura Wamwara
Appellant
Hannah Waweru
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and to Act in Person
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to leave to file a notice of appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision under the Land Disputes Tribunals Act.
- 3 Whether the application raises any point of law as required under Section 8 of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Land Disputes Tribunals Act restricts appeals from the Appeals Committee to the High Court strictly to points of law, and that no further appeal lies to the Court of Appeal. The appellant had already been denied relief by the High Court on the basis that no point of law was raised. The present application for leave to appeal out of time was therefore without merit, as the statutory framework does not permit such an appeal. The court upheld the respondent's preliminary objection and dismissed the application, awarding costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time is dismissed.
- The preliminary objection is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO 357 OF 2000
CHARLES KAHURA WAMWARA …………..………… APPELLANT
VERSUS
HANNAH WAWERU ……………………..……………. RESPONDENT
RULING
The Appellant in the application dated 28th September, 2004 seeks the following orders:
“1. THAT leave be granted to the Appellant/Applicant Charles Kahuru Namwara to act in person in place of firm of Muhuhu & Company Advocates.
2. THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to give leave to the Appellant/Applicant to file Notice of Appeal out of prescr ibed time.
3. THAT costs be in cause.”
The parties recorded a consent on 20th July, 2004 in which prayer one was allowed.
The Counsel for the Respondent raised a Preliminary Objection in which he argued that Section 8 of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act allows an appeal to the High Court on issues of law only and thereafter no appeal can be lodged to the Court of Appeal.
That is indeed the correct position. This matter was heard and determined by my Brother Justice Kariuki, who entered judgment against the Appellant on grounds that there was no point of law that had been transgressed to justify interference with the award of the Appeals tribunal.
Section 8 (a) Land Disputes Tribunals provides that:
“Either party to the appeal may appeal from the decision of the Appeals Committee to the High Court on a point of law within sixty days from the date of the decision complained of.”
The Appellant did not satisfy this court that he was aggrieved on any point of law and his application was dismissed by Hon. Kariuki, J on 1st October, 2003.
Accordingly, I find no merit in his present application for leave to appeal against that decision. I decline the same. The Preliminary Objection is upheld, with costs to the Respondent.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 18th day of October, 2004.
ALNASHIR VISRAM JUDGE