[2000] KECA 324 (KLR)

[2000] KECA 324 (KLR)

The Court held that the date of delivery of the decision is as stated in the ruling itself, which was 21 October 1999. The notice of appeal, having been filed on 5 November 1999, was therefore out of time. As a result, the intended appeal was rendered incompetent, and the application for an injunction under rule...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] KECA 324 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: David Sopon Ole Loroma; Applicant: Maanta Ole Putaputa; Applicant: Maanta Ole Lepaso; Applicant: Daniel Monkoti Sabaya; Applicant: Ngina Kipoopo; Applicant: Taporu Masaine; Applicant: Raita Lenchoki; Applicant: Bartimaru also known as Ilpartimaru Group Ranch; Respondent: Lemono Ole Ntenkese; Respondent: Tupet Ole Murre alias Olkauet; Respondent: Samuel Ole Parashuru
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 323 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
application struck out as incompetent
Legal Topics
Notice of Appeal, Time Limits, Court of Appeal Rules, Preliminary Objection
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Notice of Appeal Time Limits Court of Appeal Rules Preliminary Objection

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Sopon Ole Loroma

Applicant

Maanta Ole Putaputa

Applicant

Maanta Ole Lepaso

Applicant

Daniel Monkoti Sabaya

Applicant

Ngina Kipoopo

Applicant

Taporu Masaine

Applicant

Raita Lenchoki

Applicant

Bartimaru also known as Ilpartimaru Group Ranch

Applicant

Lemono Ole Ntenkese

Respondent

Tupet Ole Murre alias Olkauet

Respondent

Samuel Ole Parashuru

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the notice of appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit under the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the discrepancy in the date of the decision as stated in the notice of appeal renders the appeal incompetent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the date of delivery of the decision is as stated in the ruling itself, which was 21 October 1999. The notice of appeal, having been filed on 5 November 1999, was therefore out of time. As a result, the intended appeal was rendered incompetent, and the application for an injunction under rule 5(2)(b) was struck out with costs.

Court Disposition

application struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • The application filed by the applicants for an injunction under rule 5(2)(b) of the Rules of this Court is struck out with costs.