[2005] KECA 267 (KLR)
The Court found that the 3rd respondent was neither seeking to vary nor reverse the decision of the High Court, nor was it seeking to affirm the decision on grounds other than those relied upon by the High Court. Furthermore, the 3rd respondent had not filed a cross-appeal. Therefore, rule 90 of the Court of Appeal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KECA 267 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Grain Bulk Handlers Limited; Respondent: J.B. Maina & Co. Ltd; Respondent: Coast Silos [K] Ltd; Respondent: Kenya Ports Authority
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 295 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Objection During Appeal Hearing
- Outcome
- Objection dismissed; proceedings to continue.
- Legal Topics
- Appeals Procedure, Cross Appeals, Application of Court Rules
- 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
Grain Bulk Handlers Limited
Appellant
J.B. Maina & Co. Ltd
Respondent
Coast Silos [K] Ltd
Respondent
Kenya Ports Authority
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Objection During Appeal Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 3rd respondent's actions amounted to a cross-appeal or invocation of grounds for affirming the decision on other bases.
- 2 Whether rule 90 of the Court of Appeal Rules was applicable to the 3rd respondent's submissions.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the 3rd respondent was neither seeking to vary nor reverse the decision of the High Court, nor was it seeking to affirm the decision on grounds other than those relied upon by the High Court. Furthermore, the 3rd respondent had not filed a cross-appeal. Therefore, rule 90 of the Court of Appeal Rules was not applicable to the 3rd respondent's submissions. The objection raised by the appellant was found to be misplaced and was rejected, especially as it was raised after the appellant's counsel had concluded submissions.
Court Disposition
Objection dismissed; proceedings to continue.
Orders
- The objection by the appellant is rejected.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT MOMBASA
CORAM: TUNOI, O’KUBASU & GITHINJI, JJ.A
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2003
BETWEEN
GRAIN BULK HANDLERS LIMITED…….………………………..APPELLANT
AND J.B. MAINA & CO. LTD………………….………..…………….1ST RESPONDENT
COAST SILOS [K] LTD……………..……..…………………….2ND RESPONDENT
KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY………………………………….3RD RESPONDENT
(An appeal against the decision of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Khaminwa, J) given on 8 th August, 2003
in H.C.MISC.C. NO. 479 OF 2003) ********************
RULING OF THE COURT
In our view, the 3rd respondent is not seeking to vary or reverse the decision of the superior court nor does it seek to have it affirmed on any other grounds than those relied upon by that Court. Further, the 3rd respondent is not cross-appealing. In the circumstances, rule 90 is not applicable. It must follow, therefore, that the objection on the course taken by Mr. Amokois misplaced and we reject it. Moreover, the objection is belatedly taken the appellant’s counsel having concluded his submissions.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 4 th day of February, 2005.
P.K. TUNOI
…………………………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
E.O. O’KUBASU
…………………………
JUDGE OF APPEAL
E.M. GITHINJI
…………………………
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR