[2007] KECA 361 (KLR)

[2007] KECA 361 (KLR)

The Court found that the respondents had applied for certified copies of the proceedings and judgment within the required time after the High Court's decision. There was no evidence that the delay in instituting the appeal was due to the respondents' inaction; rather, it was attributable to the court's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] KECA 361 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Nginyi Muchiri; Respondent: Saul Korir Kiptalam; Respondent: John Kamunya; Respondent: Alex Kibore; Respondent: Job Gichuru Njoroge; Respondent: Esther Njoki Kamunya; Respondent: Stephen Ngugi Kariuki; Respondent: Lydia Job Wairimu
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 202 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Legal Topics
Striking Out Notice of Appeal, Appeal Timelines, Failure to Institute Appeal, Court of Appeal Rules
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Striking Out Notice of Appeal Appeal Timelines Failure to Institute Appeal 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

John Nginyi Muchiri

Applicant

Saul Korir Kiptalam

Respondent

John Kamunya

Respondent

Alex Kibore

Respondent

Job Gichuru Njoroge

Respondent

Esther Njoki Kamunya

Respondent

Stephen Ngugi Kariuki

Respondent

Lydia Job Wairimu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the respondents failed to take essential steps to institute the appeal within the prescribed time.
  2. 2 Whether the notices of appeal filed by the respondents should be struck out for being defective or for delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondents had applied for certified copies of the proceedings and judgment within the required time after the High Court's decision. There was no evidence that the delay in instituting the appeal was due to the respondents' inaction; rather, it was attributable to the court's administrative process in preparing the proceedings. The proviso to rule 81(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules expressly allows for exclusion of such time from the computation of the period for filing an appeal. Therefore, the application to strike out the notices of appeal lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 29th June, 2006 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.