[2021] KECA 771 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 771 (KLR)

The Court found that the appellant failed to file the record of appeal within the mandatory 60-day period required by Rule 82(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The delay of approximately 50 days beyond the statutory timeline was not explained or excused by leave of court. The Court emphasized that adherence to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 771 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Gabriel Onyanchi Sundia; Respondent: Francis Tobias Akello suing as administrator of the estate of Matayi Akello Oloo
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 96 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Appeal
Outcome
application allowed; appeal struck out as incompetent
Judges
GG Okwengu, GK Oenga, F Sichale
Legal Topics
Appeal Timelines, Striking Out Appeal, Non Compliance With Rules
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeal Timelines Striking Out Appeal Non Compliance With Rules

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gabriel Onyanchi Sundia

Appellant

Francis Tobias Akello suing as administrator of the estate of Matayi Akello Oloo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appeal was filed out of time and without leave.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal was filed by an advocate not properly on record.
  3. 3 Whether the record of appeal was incomplete and thus incompetent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the appellant failed to file the record of appeal within the mandatory 60-day period required by Rule 82(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The delay of approximately 50 days beyond the statutory timeline was not explained or excused by leave of court. The Court emphasized that adherence to procedural timelines is essential for the proper administration of justice and that non-compliance with such rules is fatal to the appeal. The Court further held that such procedural defects cannot be cured by invoking Article 159 of the Constitution. As a result, the appeal was rendered incompetent and was struck out with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application allowed; appeal struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • The notice and the record of appeal are struck out with costs to the respondent.