[1998] KECA 265 (KLR)

[1998] KECA 265 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal found the appeal incompetent due to procedural defects, including the absence of a primary document (the chamber summons dated 23rd September, 1996) and inconsistencies in the dates of the orders appealed against. Furthermore, the appeal could not lie without leave to appeal, which had not been...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] KECA 265 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Joseph Inima; Respondent: Marita Musuluve
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 53 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Time and Refusal to Grant Stay of Execution
Outcome
appeal struck out as incompetent
Judges
JE Gicheru
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Competency of Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Stay of Execution Competency of Appeal

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

Joseph Inima

Appellant

Marita Musuluve

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Time and Refusal to Grant Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the superior court erred in refusing to extend time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to grant stay of execution was proper.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal is competent in light of procedural defects.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found the appeal incompetent due to procedural defects, including the absence of a primary document (the chamber summons dated 23rd September, 1996) and inconsistencies in the dates of the orders appealed against. Furthermore, the appeal could not lie without leave to appeal, which had not been obtained. As a result, the court struck out the appeal for incompetence, making no order as to costs since the respondent had not applied for such under rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Court Disposition

appeal struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out as incompetent.
  • No order as to costs.