[2001] KECA 224 (KLR)
The court held that its jurisdiction to entertain an application for stay of execution under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules is predicated on the existence of a valid notice of appeal. The validity of such a notice can be determined at the hearing of the substantive application, not at the stage of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KECA 224 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Credit Bank Limited; Respondent: Jayantital Gopal Patel
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 58 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Urgency Certification
- Outcome
- application for urgency certification declined
- Legal Topics
- Notice of Appeal, Stay of Execution, Court Jurisdiction
- 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
Credit Bank Limited
Applicant
Jayantital Gopal Patel
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Urgency Certification
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's notice of appeal was valid given he was not a party to the original suit and had not obtained leave to appeal.
- 2 Whether the application to strike out the notice of appeal should be certified as urgent under rule 47(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that its jurisdiction to entertain an application for stay of execution under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules is predicated on the existence of a valid notice of appeal. The validity of such a notice can be determined at the hearing of the substantive application, not at the stage of certifying urgency. The applicant's submissions did not persuade the court to depart from its initial refusal to certify the application as urgent. Therefore, the order declining to certify the application urgent under rule 47(2) stands.
Court Disposition
application for urgency certification declined
Orders
- Order declining to certify the application as urgent under rule 47(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules stands.
- Costs occasioned by the informal application are awarded.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GICHERU, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 58 OF 2001 (UR. 36/2001)
BETWEEN
CREDIT BANK LIMITED...............................................APPLICANT
AND
JAYANTITAL GOPAL PATEL....................................RESPONDENT
(An application to strike out a notice of appeal filed in Kisumu High Court (Wambilyangah, J.) dated 7/11/200
in
H.C.C.C. NO. 222 OF 2000) ************************
R U L I N G:
By its notice of Motion dated 2nd March, 2001, the applicant seeks to have the respondent's notice of appeal lodged in the superior court on 20th November, 2000 in Kisumu High Court Civil Case NO. 222 of 2000 struck out principally for the reasons that the respondent herein was not a party to the suit aforementioned and that he had not obtained leave to appeal. To this end, according to the applicant, the respondent's notice of appeal was fatally defective. Since the notice of appeal sought to be struck out is the basis of the respondent's application for stay of execution, it was necessary, according to the applicant, to certify its application urgent for the outcome of the same would determine the fate of the respondent's stay application.
The jurisdiction of this Court in an application for stay of execution under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules is founded on the existence of a notice of appeal lodged in accordance with rule 74 of the aforesaid Rules. Without such a notice of appeal, this Court would have no jurisdiction in an application for stay of execution under rule 5(2)(b), supra. Thus, the validity of a notice of appeal in such an application can be determined at the hearing of the same. Hence, my initial refusal to certify the applicant's application urgent under rule 47(2) of the Rules of this Court. The submissions of counsel for the applicant have not persuaded me otherwise. Consequently, the order declining to certify the said application urgent under the aforesaid rule stands. The costs occasioned by this informal application are awarded
Dated and Delivered on this 6th day of April, 2001.
J.E. GICHERU ................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR