[2021] KECA 670 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 670 (KLR)

The Court found that while the respondents complied with Rule 75 by lodging the notice of appeal within the prescribed time, they failed to comply with Rule 77 by serving the notice on the applicants outside the mandatory seven-day period. No explanation for the delay was provided, and the respondents did not oppose...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 670 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Julius Kabaruku Ndundi; Applicant: Jonathan Kenga Thethe; Applicant: Changawa Kabaruku Ndundi; Respondent: Najmudin Noorali Mohammedali (As legal representative of the estate of MohammedAli Essajee Bhaijee and the estate of Noorali M. E. Bhaijee); Respondent: The Estate of Maniklal Palathbhai Dalal
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 65 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application allowed; notice of appeal and record of appeal struck out with costs
Judges
RN Nambuye, MSA Makhandia, S ole Kantai
Legal Topics
Service of Notice, Appeal Timelines, Striking Out Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Service of Notice Appeal Timelines Striking Out Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius Kabaruku Ndundi

Applicant

Jonathan Kenga Thethe

Applicant

Changawa Kabaruku Ndundi

Applicant

Najmudin Noorali Mohammedali (As legal representative of the estate of MohammedAli Essajee Bhaijee and the estate of Noorali M. E. Bhaijee)

Respondent

The Estate of Maniklal Palathbhai Dalal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the notice of appeal was served upon the applicants within the statutory seven-day period as required by the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. 2 Whether failure to serve the notice of appeal within the prescribed time renders the appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that while the respondents complied with Rule 75 by lodging the notice of appeal within the prescribed time, they failed to comply with Rule 77 by serving the notice on the applicants outside the mandatory seven-day period. No explanation for the delay was provided, and the respondents did not oppose the application. The Court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with procedural timelines as set out in the rules, citing relevant case law. As the application to strike out was filed within the thirty-day statutory window under Rule 84, the Court held that the notice of appeal and any record of appeal based on it were incompetent and should be struck out with costs...

Court Disposition

application allowed; notice of appeal and record of appeal struck out with costs

Orders

  • The notice of appeal dated 28th June 2019 and any record of appeal premised on it are struck out for want of timely service.
  • Costs awarded to the applicants.