[2021] KECA 863 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent failed to provide evidence of having served the applicant with a letter requesting proceedings or a certificate of delay. As such, the respondent could not benefit from the proviso to Rule 82(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The record of appeal was therefore filed out of time and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KECA 863 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: CMM; Respondent: MN
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal (Application) 195 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed; appeal struck out
- Judges
- GG Okwengu, GK Oenga, F Sichale
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Timelines, Striking Out Appeal, Service of Documents, Divorce Proceedings
- 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
CMM
Applicant
MN
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal was filed out of time without leave of the court.
- 2 Whether the respondent served the applicant with a letter requesting proceedings to stop time from running.
- 3 Whether the appeal is incompetent for failure to comply with the Court of Appeal Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent failed to provide evidence of having served the applicant with a letter requesting proceedings or a certificate of delay. As such, the respondent could not benefit from the proviso to Rule 82(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The record of appeal was therefore filed out of time and without leave of the court. Consequently, the notice of appeal was deemed withdrawn and the appeal was struck out under Rule 83 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Court Disposition
application allowed; appeal struck out
Orders
- The applicant's motion is allowed.
- The notice of appeal is deemed withdrawn.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT KISUMU
(CORAM: OKWENGU, KIAGE & SICHALE, JJ.A.)
CIVIL APPEAL (APPLICATION) NO. 195 OF 2020
BETWEEN
CMM .........................................................................APPLICANT
AND
MN ..............................................APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
(Being an application to strike out the appeal filed out of time without leave against the ruling of (S. M. Githinji, J) delivered on 3rd April, 2020
in
KITALE/ELDORET DIVORCE CAUSE NO. 8 OF 2019
************************************
RULING OF THE COURT
[1] The applicant CMM, seeks to have the appeal filed by the respondent MN, against the judgment of the High Court (S. Githinji, J) struck out on the grounds: that the appeal as filed offends the mandatory provisions of Rule 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules having been filed out of time and without leave of the Court; that the appeal as filed is incompetent, the notice of appeal on record being deemed to have been withdrawn by virtue of Rule 83 of the Court of Appeal Rules; and that the delay in filing the appeal is fatal and not curable by Article 159(2)(d)of theConstitution.
[2] In an affidavit sworn in support of the motion, the applicant states that the ruling subject of the appeal was delivered on 30th April, 2020, and the applicant’s advocate was served with a notice of appeal on 15th May, 2020, and a record of appeal on 26th November, 2020. He contends that both documents were filed by the respondent out of time. This is because he was not served with any letter from the respondent requesting for proceedings, and therefore, time did not stop running. The applicant therefore urged the court to strike out the notice of appeal.
[3] In her written submissions, the respondent MN urges the Court to dismiss the applicant’s motion contending that she filed the notice of appeal within the required 14 days as provided under Rule 75 of the Court of Appeal Rules and served the respondent 3 days after filing the notice. She maintained that she applied for certified copies of the proceedings and served the applicant with the letter bespeaking the proceedings and therefore, she complied with all the necessary rules.
[4] We have considered this motion and we note that the respondent has not filed any replying affidavit. In the written submissions, the respondent appears to rely on the proviso in Rule 82(2). However, she has not exhibited any evidence to show when the letter bespeaking the proceedings was filed and when, if at all, it was served on the applicant. The applicant has also not availed any certificate of delay signed by the Deputy Registrar of the Court.
[5] In the circumstances, the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Rule 82(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. We find that the record of appeal was filed out of time and without leave.
[6] Consequently, we allow the applicant’s motion, deem the notice of appeal as withdrawn and strike out the appeal under Rule 83of theCourt Rules. Given that this matter involves a divorce matter, we do not find it appropriate to make any orders for costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021.
HANNAH OKWENGU
……………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
P. O. KIAGE
……………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
F. SICHALE
……………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true
copy of the original.
Signed
DEPUTY REGISTRAR