[2020] KECA 356 (KLR)

[2020] KECA 356 (KLR)

The Court found that the respondents failed to serve the notice of appeal on the applicants as required by Rule 77 of the Court of Appeal Rules and did not take steps to institute an appeal within the prescribed period. There was no evidence that proceedings were applied for, and more than 60 days had elapsed since...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KECA 356 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Esther Jelagat Ngeny; Applicant: Christopher Kiplagat Yego; Respondent: Peter Chepkochoi Mitei; Respondent: Barabara Kiprugut Arap Tanui; Respondent: Isaiah Kimuror Tanui
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 81 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Strike Out or Withdraw Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Notice of appeal deemed withdrawn; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
AK Murgor, F Sichale, S ole Kantai
Legal Topics
Notice of Appeal, Service of Process, Withdrawal of Appeal, Res Judicata
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Notice of Appeal Service of Process Withdrawal of Appeal Res Judicata

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esther Jelagat Ngeny

Applicant

Christopher Kiplagat Yego

Applicant

Peter Chepkochoi Mitei

Respondent

Barabara Kiprugut Arap Tanui

Respondent

Isaiah Kimuror Tanui

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Strike Out or Withdraw Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the notice of appeal should be deemed withdrawn for failure to serve and prosecute within the prescribed time.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' delay in instituting an appeal is inordinate and unreasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondents failed to serve the notice of appeal on the applicants as required by Rule 77 of the Court of Appeal Rules and did not take steps to institute an appeal within the prescribed period. There was no evidence that proceedings were applied for, and more than 60 days had elapsed since the notice of appeal was filed. The Court concluded that the delay was inordinate and unreasonable, and in the absence of compliance with the procedural requirements, the notice of appeal was deemed withdrawn under Rule 83. The applicants were awarded the costs of the Motion.

Court Disposition

Notice of appeal deemed withdrawn; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • The notice of appeal is deemed withdrawn under Rule 83 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  • The applicants are awarded the costs of the Motion.