[2009] KECA 388 (KLR)

[2009] KECA 388 (KLR)

The Court found that the respondent and its advocates had made diligent and documented efforts to obtain certified copies of the proceedings and judgment necessary for filing the record of appeal. The respondent's advocates wrote multiple letters to the Deputy Registrar, paid the required deposit, and even typed the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KECA 388 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Daly & Company Limited; Respondent: Mobil Oil Kenya Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 45 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Notice of Appeal, Delay in Filing Appeal, Certificate of Delay, Appeal Timelines
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Notice of Appeal Delay in Filing Appeal Certificate of Delay Appeal Timelines

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daly & Company Limited

Applicant

Mobil Oil Kenya Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the respondent failed to take necessary steps to file the intended appeal within the prescribed time period.
  2. 2 Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out for want of prosecution or delay attributable to the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's efforts to obtain certified proceedings and judgment constitute due diligence under the rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondent and its advocates had made diligent and documented efforts to obtain certified copies of the proceedings and judgment necessary for filing the record of appeal. The respondent's advocates wrote multiple letters to the Deputy Registrar, paid the required deposit, and even typed the proceedings themselves for certification. The delay in filing the appeal was therefore not due to any indolence or lack of action on the part of the respondent, but rather due to the Deputy Registrar's failure to provide the certified documents. Under Rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the time required for preparation and delivery of such documents is excluded from the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 19th February, 2008 is dismissed.
  • There shall be no orders as to the costs of the said motion.