[2005] KECA 284 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal allowed the application for adjournment because both parties acknowledged the existence of two pending applications that had not been disposed of and the fact that the record of appeal had not been served on the respondent. The court found it appropriate to adjourn the hearing of the appeal to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KECA 284 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: GAPCO Kenya Limited; Respondent: Salim Osman Talab; Respondent: Osman Haji Ali Haji Talab; Respondent: Zera Osman Ali Haji Ali Taib
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 111 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Adjournment Pending Disposal of Interlocutory Applications
- Outcome
- Application for adjournment allowed; appeal adjourned to a date to be fixed after determination of pending applications; costs in the appeal.
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment, Service of Record, Pending Applications
- 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
GAPCO Kenya Limited
Appellant
Salim Osman Talab
Respondent
Osman Haji Ali Haji Talab
Respondent
Zera Osman Ali Haji Ali Taib
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Adjournment Pending Disposal of Interlocutory Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be adjourned due to pending applications.
- 2 Whether failure to serve the record of appeal on the respondent justifies adjournment.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal allowed the application for adjournment because both parties acknowledged the existence of two pending applications that had not been disposed of and the fact that the record of appeal had not been served on the respondent. The court found it appropriate to adjourn the hearing of the appeal to facilitate the prosecution of the pending applications and to ensure proper service of the record of appeal. The appeal was accordingly taken out of the day's hearing list and adjourned to a date to be fixed after the determination of the pending applications. Costs of the adjournment were ordered to be costs in the appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for adjournment allowed; appeal adjourned to a date to be fixed after determination of pending applications; costs in the appeal.
Orders
- The application for adjournment is allowed.
- The appeal is taken out of today's hearing list and adjourned to a date to be fixed at the registry after the hearing and determination of the pending applications.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
11 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEALAT MOMBASA(CORAM:OMOLO, TUNOI & GITHINJI, JJ.A)Civil Appeal Appli 111 of 2004BETWEEN
GAPCO KENYA LIMITED ………..………… APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
AND
SALIM OSMAN TALAB …………..………1ST RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
OSMAN HAJI ALI HAJI TALAB …..…… 2ND RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
ZERA OSMAN ALI HAJI ALI TAIB ….…3RD RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
(Appeal from the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Omwitsa Comm. of Assize) dated 19 th March, 2003 in H.C.C.C. No. 102 of 2001) *******************
RULING OF THE COURT
Mr. Chacha Odera who is holding brief for Mr. S.K. Shah, for the respondent, in this appeal applies for adjournment on the ground that there are two pending applications in this appeal and on the further ground that the record of appeal has not been served on the respondent. Mr. Omondi, for the appellant concedes that there are indeed two pending applications which have not been disposed of. He further concedes that the record of appeal has not been served on the respondent. He does not oppose the application for adjournment.
In the circumstances, we allow the application for adjournment to facilitate the prosecution of the two pending applications and the service of the record of appeal on the respondent. Consequently, the appeal is taken out of today’s hearing list and adjourned to a date to be fixed at the registry after the hearing and determination of the pending applications. Costs of this adjournment be costs in the appeal. Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 27th day of July, 2005. R.S.C. OMOLO ………………………………….. JUDGE OF APPEAL P.K. TUNOI ………………………………….. JUDGE OF APPEAL E.M. GITHINJI …………………………………… JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. DEPUTY REGISTRAR.