[2010] KEHC 2967 (KLR)
The application was fatally defective as it was filed by a new advocate after judgment without the requisite leave of court, contrary to Order III Rule 9A of the Civil Procedure Rules. This procedural lapse rendered the application a nullity, and no valid orders could issue from it. Even if the court were wrong on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2967 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ephantus Mugane Ruo; Respondent: Peter Kimani Ruo; Respondent: Peter Kariuki Nganga; Respondent: Paul Gitonga Nganga; Respondent: Rahab Waitherero Ruo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application 518 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Change of Advocate Post Judgment, Preliminary Objection, Stay of Execution, Appellate Procedure
- 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
Ephantus Mugane Ruo
Applicant
Peter Kimani Ruo
Respondent
Peter Kariuki Nganga
Respondent
Paul Gitonga Nganga
Respondent
Rahab Waitherero Ruo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal out of time is competent given the change of advocate after judgment without leave of court.
- 2 Whether the application for stay of execution is tenable where the decree has already been executed.
- 3 Whether the cited provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules were properly invoked.
Ratio Decidendi
The application was fatally defective as it was filed by a new advocate after judgment without the requisite leave of court, contrary to Order III Rule 9A of the Civil Procedure Rules. This procedural lapse rendered the application a nullity, and no valid orders could issue from it. Even if the court were wrong on this point, the application would still fail because the applicant relied on inapplicable provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the court cannot stay execution of a decree that has already been executed. The preliminary objection was therefore upheld and the application dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The preliminary objection is upheld.
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Criminal Miscellaneous Application 518 of 2009
EPHANTUS MUGANE RUO …………….……………...…….. APPLICANT
VS.
PETER KIMANI RUO ……………………………..…….1ST RESPONDENT
PETER KARIUKI NGANGA …………………….……. 2ND RESPONDENT
PAUL GITONGA NGANGA …………………………… 3RD RESPONDENT
RAHAB WAITHERERO RUO ……………………….. 4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
By a Notice of Motion dated 29th July, 2009, the applicant moved the court under Order XLIX rule 5 and Order L Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and Order IXA rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules for orders that he be granted leave to file an appeal out of time against the judgment in Kiambu CMCC No.68 of 2005 and that there be a stay of execution of the said judgment pending the hearing of and determination of this application and the intended appeal.
The application is opposed and the Respondents, through the 2nd Respondent have filed a replying affidavit.
The learned counsel for the Respondents has filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on Points of Law. Counsel were then required to file submissions but only the learned counsel for the Respondents complied. The submissions so filed on behalf of the Respondents are uncontroverted.
In the lower court, the applicant was represented by the firm of Kamere & Company Advocates while in this court the firm of Wariuki & Company Advocates filed the present application. A change of advocate or notice of intention to act in person, after judgment has been passed shall not be effected without an order of the court upon an application with notice to the advocate on record. See Order III Rule 9A of the Civil Procedure Rules.
No such order was sought and therefore the application filed by Wariuki & Co. Advocates is a nullity. No orders can flow from an application which is a nullity and this alone is enough to dispose of this application.
In the unlikely event that the court is wrong in so finding, the applicant would still be faulted for not invoking the provisions of order XLI Rule 4(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Order IXA Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules is not applicable as it relates to setting aside judgment obtained as a consequence of non-appearance and default of defence. In the instant case there was a full trial.
Finally, the court cannot stay execution of a decree that has been executed. The affidavit in reply is unequivocal that this has been done. There was no rejoinder to that averment.
The Preliminary Objection must succeed. It is upheld. The application before me is incompetent. It is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 1st day of March, 2010.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE
In the presence:
Miss Mogere for the Respondent
N/A for the Applicant