[2019] KEHC 9709 (KLR)
The court found that the Memorandum of Appeal was filed 30 days out of time and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay or to seek leave for extension of time as required by Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicant's reliance on the absence of typed proceedings and judgment...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 9709 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joseph Michael Mwenja; Respondent: Woolmatt Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 163 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Memorandum of Appeal
- Outcome
- Memorandum of Appeal struck out as incompetent and a nullity ab initio.
- Judges
- JK Mulwa
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Timelines, Extension of Time, Striking Out Pleadings
- 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
Joseph Michael Mwenja
Appellant
Woolmatt Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Memorandum of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Memorandum of Appeal was filed within the statutory period prescribed by Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act.
- 2 Whether sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the appeal.
- 3 Whether the appeal should be struck out for failure to seek extension of time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Memorandum of Appeal was filed 30 days out of time and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay or to seek leave for extension of time as required by Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicant's reliance on the absence of typed proceedings and judgment was not persuasive, as a handwritten judgment was available and a certified copy of the decree or order could have been obtained. The court emphasized that statutory timelines must be adhered to unless good and sufficient cause is shown, and procedural technicalities cannot be used to circumvent clear legal requirements. Consequently, the appeal was fatally defective and...
Court Disposition
Memorandum of Appeal struck out as incompetent and a nullity ab initio.
Orders
- The Memorandum of Appeal filed on 13th December 2017 is struck out.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT NAKURU
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2017
JOSEPH MICHAEL MWENJA........................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
WOOLMATT LIMITED...............................................RESPONDENT
(An appeal from the Judgment of Hon. L. Gicheha in Nakuru
CMCC Number 662 of 2009, delivered on 13th October 2019)
RULING
1. By a Notice of Motion dated 7th June 2018, the Applicant sought an order to strike out the Memorandum of Appeal dated 13th December 2017 and filed on the same day.
It is brought under the provisions of Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act that requires that an Appeal from a subordinate court to the High Court to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of the decree or order appealed from.
2. It further provides that the 30 days is exclusive of the period that the lower court may certify as having been requisite for the preparation and delivery to the appellant of a copy of the decree or order.
The section also provides that an appeal may be admitted out of time if the appellant satisfies the court that he had good and sufficient cause for the delay.
3. The judgment of the subordinate court was delivered on the 13th October 2017.
It was not typed. I have seen the handwritten judgment. As at date of filing the Memorandum of Appeal, the delay was for 30 days and the present application was filed on the 11th June 2018 a period of six months after filing the Memorandum of Appeal.
4. It is submitted by the applicant that as at the time of filing this application the trial court’s proceedings and judgment/Decree had not been typed and therefore made it difficult to file the Appeal within the statutory period.
5. The Respondent opposes the application on numerous grounds. That the handwritten judgment was sufficient to facilitate preparation and filing of the Memorandum of Appeal within 30 days, that no evidence was adduced by way of exhibits to the supporting affidavit to demonstrate any efforts made to obtain the typed proceedings and judgment nor any letters to the executive officer requesting for them.
Further no evidence of payment for the proceedings was exhibited.
It was thus submitted that the Appeal should be struck out.
6. There is no dispute over the facts stated above.
The applicant has not filed an application for extension of time within which the appeal may be filed nor for leave to file the appeal out of time. No reason at all has been stated for this failure save to state that the applicant is in the process of filing such application.
7. As at the date of arguing this application before me in October and November 2018, no such application had been filed. None has been filed todate.
The court has discretion whether or not to extend time for filing an appeal out of time. However such discretion ought to be guided by factors such as the period of the delay, reasons for the delay, arguability of the appeal, degree of prejudice that may be suffered by the Respondent if extension is granted – Samuel Mwaura Muthumbi –vs- Josephine Wanjiru Ngugi & Another (2018) e KLR.
8. Section 79G CPA proviso provides that an appeal may be admitted out of time if the appellant satisfies the court that he had good and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. Asma Ali Mohamed –vs- Fatime Mwinyi Juma CA 75/2014 and Gerald M’limbine –vs- Joseph Kanganyi (2009) e KLRboth decisions cited in the case APA Insurance Ltd –vs- Michael Kinyanji Muturi (2016) e KLR.
9. The period of delay in this Appeal is 30 days. The reason for the delay in my opinion has not been sufficiently explained coupled with the applicant’s failure to apply for leave for extension of time.
10. It is true that a party does not require copies of the proceedings to file a Memorandum of Appeal but only a certified copy of the decree or order sought to be appealed from which may also be filed later.
The applicant did not say that he did not have a copy of he judgment though hand written.
11. The documents that must be filed within the statutory 30 day period are the Memorandum of Appeal, a copy of the formal or judgment/Decree, which may also be filed later or as the court may order under Order 42 Rule 2 CPR.In– M.G. & Another –vs- JKG (2015) e KLR the court observed that an appeal from a subordinate court would be incomplete without the order or decree appealed from, hence if the order/decree are not readily available they must be filed to the earliest opportunity or as the court may order.
12. As at the time of filing this application, no such order/decree had been filed.
I am minded that Article 159(2) (d) of the Constitution enjoins the court to dispense justice without regard to procedural technicalities. Where there are clear statutory provisions guiding when and how an act is to be taken in plain and clear language like Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act,the party cannot be allowed to take advantage of its failures and hide behind the Article which is not made to whitewash all procedural failures without any sufficient reasons –
Telkom Kenya ltd -vs- Johnson Ochanda (2014) e KLR.
13. I find that the applicant’s failure and delay to file the appeal within the statutory period and its default in obtaining leave of court to file the appeal out of time by extending the period inexcusable. No sufficient reasons have been adduced.
14. Accordingly I find the Memorandum of Appeal filed on the 13th December 2017 to be fatally defective, incompetent and a nullity ab initio.
It is struck out with no orders as to costs.
Dated, signed and delivered this 28th Day of February 2019.
J.N. MULWA
JUDGE