[2023] KECA 300 (KLR)

[2023] KECA 300 (KLR)

The court found that the 1st respondent had demonstrated, by producing a court receipt dated 5th March 2021, that the notice of appeal was lodged and paid for within the 14-day period prescribed by Rule 75(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010. The subsequent endorsement by the Deputy Registrar on 8th March 2021 was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KECA 300 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Tabu Tuva Khonde; Applicant: Kahindi Kaingu Gonda; Respondent: Ngomeni Swimmers Limited; Respondent: Zedi Ahmed Said; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: The Land Registrar Kilifi; Respondent: Chief Land Registrar; Respondent: Director Of Survey; Respondent: The Director Of Land Adjudication And Settlement; Respondent: Registrar Of Titles Mombasa; Interested Party: St Patrick Hill School Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E029 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
SG Kairu, P Nyamweya, GV Odunga
Legal Topics
Notice of Appeal Timelines, Filing Procedure, Court of Appeal Rules, Land Dispute Appeals
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Notice of Appeal Timelines Filing Procedure Court of Appeal Rules Land Dispute Appeals

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tabu Tuva Khonde

Applicant

Kahindi Kaingu Gonda

Applicant

Ngomeni Swimmers Limited

Respondent

Zedi Ahmed Said

Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

The Land Registrar Kilifi

Respondent

Chief Land Registrar

Respondent

Director Of Survey

Respondent

The Director Of Land Adjudication And Settlement

Respondent

Registrar Of Titles Mombasa

Respondent

St Patrick Hill School Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the 1st respondent's notice of appeal was filed within the prescribed 14-day period under the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out for being filed out of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st respondent had demonstrated, by producing a court receipt dated 5th March 2021, that the notice of appeal was lodged and paid for within the 14-day period prescribed by Rule 75(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010. The subsequent endorsement by the Deputy Registrar on 8th March 2021 was an administrative act outside the respondent's control and did not affect the validity of the filing date. Therefore, the notice of appeal was filed in time, and the application to strike it out was without merit and dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to strike out the 1st respondent's notice of appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st respondent.