[1997] KECA 170 (KLR)

[1997] KECA 170 (KLR)

The Court found that although there was a delay in the preparation of the record of appeal, the respondent had actively pursued the matter and the delay was due to circumstances beyond its control, specifically the superior court's delay in preparing the record. As such, the respondent could not be faulted for the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1997] KECA 170 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Isaac Ndiso Malinda; Applicant: Catherine N. Mutisya; Applicant: David Mutua Wambua; Respondent: Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 361 of 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to abide the appeal
Judges
AM Akiwumi
Legal Topics
Striking Out Notice of Appeal, Delay in Preparing Record, Appeal Process, Court of Appeal Rules
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Striking Out Notice of Appeal Delay in Preparing Record Appeal Process Court of Appeal Rules

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isaac Ndiso Malinda

Applicant

Catherine N. Mutisya

Applicant

David Mutua Wambua

Applicant

Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the notice of appeal and draft memorandum of appeal should be struck out for failure to take essential procedural steps.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in preparing the record of appeal is attributable to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that although there was a delay in the preparation of the record of appeal, the respondent had actively pursued the matter and the delay was due to circumstances beyond its control, specifically the superior court's delay in preparing the record. As such, the respondent could not be faulted for the delay, and the application to strike out the notice of appeal and draft memorandum of appeal lacked merit. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal, which the Court expected would be filed promptly once the record became available.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to abide the appeal

Orders

  • The application to strike out the notice of appeal and draft memorandum of appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.