[2005] KEHC 2723 (KLR)
The court held that the affidavit in support of the application for review and reinstatement was an independent document and was required to comply with Sections 34 and 35 of the Advocates Act by bearing the endorsement of the advocate or firm that drew and filed it. The absence of such endorsement rendered the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 2723 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Jeremiah Ogola Dunga; Respondent: Cooper Motors Corporation (K) Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 41 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Review and Reinstatement After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Affidavit Defects, Review of Orders, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- 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
Jeremiah Ogola Dunga
Appellant
Cooper Motors Corporation (K) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Review and Reinstatement After Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the supporting affidavit is incurably defective for lack of endorsement as required by the Advocates Act.
- 2 Whether the application for review and reinstatement can succeed without a valid supporting affidavit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the affidavit in support of the application for review and reinstatement was an independent document and was required to comply with Sections 34 and 35 of the Advocates Act by bearing the endorsement of the advocate or firm that drew and filed it. The absence of such endorsement rendered the affidavit incurably defective. As the affidavit was struck out, there was no evidence in support of the application, and therefore the application could not succeed and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The supporting affidavit is struck out as incurably defective.
- The application dated 2nd February, 2005 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO 41 OF 1998
JEREMIAH OGOLA DUNGA …………………………… APPELLANT VERSUS COOPER MOTORS CORPORATION (K) LTD ….…. RESPONDENT
RULING
This is an application for review of the Orders of this Court made on 11th November, 2004 when the Appeal herein was dismissed for want of prosecution, and for reinstatement of the Appeal. It is made under Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Act and is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Appellant on 18th February, 2005.
Mr Macharia, Counsel for the Respondent, submitted that the aforesaid affidavit is incurably defective on the ground that it did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 35 (1) and 34 of the Advocates Act, Cap 16 in that the affidavit did not bear the endorsement of the person (or Advocate’s firm) who drew, prepared and filed it.
Mr Nyachoti, Counsel for the Applicant, responded by submitting that the Notice of Motion application to which the Affidavit is annexed did indeed bear the name of the law firm, and accordingly the Affidavit could not be struck out.
I would disagree with Mr Nyachoti’s argument that a document annexed to another need not comply with Sections 34 and 35 of the Advocates Act as long as the principal document has so complied. The Affidavit here is an independent document that supports the main application. There is no requirement that it be drawn by the same firm or Advocate who drew the main application. It could have been drawn by any authorized advocate or firm, and often times is, especially when depositions taken out of town or out of jurisdiction are filed with applications made by Advocates here.
It is, therefore, essential that the Affidavit annexed to the Notice of Motion bear the endorsement of the Advocate or firm that drew and filed it. As the Affidavit in support of this application does not do so, it is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 35 (1) read together with Section 34 of the Advocates Act. Accordingly, it is incurably defective, and is struck out. That leaves this application without any evidence in support. As such the application dated 2nd February, 2005 cannot succeed, and is dismissed with Costs to the Respondent.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 11th day of May, 2005.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE