[2007] KEHC 2294 (KLR)
The court found that the Notice of Motion failed to state the grounds upon which it was based, in direct contravention of Order L Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. This omission rendered the application incompetent. The court determined that it was just to strike out the application for non-compliance with the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2294 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Karuri alias Kiura Nguitui; Respondent: Wangarwe Gatugi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 59 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Extend Time to Appeal
- Outcome
- application struck out for non-compliance with procedural rules; leave granted to file fresh application
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Notice of Motion Requirements, Preliminary Objection, Non Compliance With Rules
- 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
Karuri alias Kiura Nguitui
Appellant
Wangarwe Gatugi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Extend Time to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether failure to state grounds in the Notice of Motion renders the application incompetent.
- 2 Whether the application should be struck out for non-compliance with Order L Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Notice of Motion failed to state the grounds upon which it was based, in direct contravention of Order L Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. This omission rendered the application incompetent. The court determined that it was just to strike out the application for non-compliance with the procedural rules, rather than address the substantive issues, to avoid prejudicing the applicant's right to bring a compliant application in the future. The application was therefore struck out with costs to the respondent, but the applicant was granted leave to file a fresh application that complies with the rules.
Court Disposition
application struck out for non-compliance with procedural rules; leave granted to file fresh application
Orders
- The application is struck out for being in contravention of Order L Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
Civil Misc Appli 59 of 2004
KARURI ALIAS KIURA NGUITUI…..………….…....APPELLANT
Versus
WANGARWE GATUGI…………………………….RESPONDENT
RULING
The Notice of Motion dated 21st April is brought by Karuri Elias Kiura Nguitui. The same is brought under Order XLIX Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Notice of Motion seeks an order of the court to extend time for the Applicant to appeal against the ruling of Kerugoya PM LDT NO. 18 of 1988. The application was argued fully before me and in opposition the Respondent filed grounds of opposition. In respect of ground no. 2 the Respondent indicated that the application is incompetent for failing to state the grounds upon which it is based. The Respondent argued that to so fail to state was in contravention of Order L Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. That order provides as follows:
“Every notice of motion shall state in general terms the grounds of the application, and where any motion is grounded on evidence by affidavit, a copy of any affidavit intended to be used shall be served.”
Looking at the Notice of Motion it is correct to state that it fails to state the grounds upon which it is based. That ground which was raised by the Respondent in the court’s mind ought to have been raised as a preliminary objection. It is after all a point of law which if raised, would do away with the application.
I have considered this matter and I am of the view that the interest of justice require that the court considers that objection without delving into the other issues raised before me. The reason I choose to take this course is because in the court’s mind the applicant is entitled to be given a chance to bring to court an application that complies with the rules. To otherwise rule on the various issues raised would make such a subsequent application res judicata. I am therefore of the view that the just way to deal with this matter is that the application should be struck out with costs to the Respondent with leave being granted to the Applicant to file another application. The same is struck out for being in contravention of O. L Rule 3. Those then are the orders of this court.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 6th day of July 2007.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE