[2000] KECA 301 (KLR)
The Court held that since the applicant had not sought nor obtained the mandatory leave required under rule 44(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules to file the amended Notice of Motion, the application was not properly before the Court. The absence of leave rendered the application procedurally defective and liable to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KECA 301 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Harish Mohan Devani; Respondent: The Project & Equipment Corporation of India Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 380 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Misc Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- E Owuor
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Amend, Court of Appeal Rules, Procedural Compliance
- 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
Harish Mohan Devani
Applicant
The Project & Equipment Corporation of India Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Misc Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant could urge an amended Notice of Motion without obtaining leave of the Court as required under rule 44(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that since the applicant had not sought nor obtained the mandatory leave required under rule 44(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules to file the amended Notice of Motion, the application was not properly before the Court. The absence of leave rendered the application procedurally defective and liable to dismissal. The Court agreed with the respondent's counsel and dismissed the application with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
civil misc appl 380 of 96
HARISH MOHAN DEVANI ................................. APPLICANT
AND
THE PROJECT & EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED ........................ RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
Mr. Gautama, counsel for the applicant, concedes that he did not seek nor was he granted leave by this Court to file his amended Notice of motion filed herein on 8th May, 1997 which he now wants to urge. He has further conceded that under rule 44(1) of the Rules of this Court, leave is mandatory. I agree with Mr. Nagpal, counsel for the respondent, that the amended Notice of motion is not properly before me. I hereby dismiss the application with costs to the respoDnadteendt . and delivered at Nairobi this 14th day of July, 2000.
E. OWUOR
...............
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR