[2019] KECA 722 (KLR)

[2019] KECA 722 (KLR)

The respondent failed to comply with both the mandatory timelines set by the Court of Appeal Rules and a specific court order requiring the filing of a record of appeal within 45 days. No record of appeal was filed within the prescribed period or at all. The court found that the notice of appeal had lapsed and 'died...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KECA 722 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kizito Savali; Respondent: Marshalls East Africa Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 48 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application allowed; notice of appeal struck out; costs to applicant
Judges
AM Githinji, FI Koome, S ole Kantai
Legal Topics
Appeals Procedure, Notice of Appeal, Record of Appeal, Stay of Execution, Employer Employee Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Employment and Labour Appeals Procedure Notice of Appeal Record of Appeal Stay of Execution Employer Employee Disputes

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

Kizito Savali

Applicant

Marshalls East Africa Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's failure to file a record of appeal within the prescribed period warrants striking out the notice of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the stay of execution should be discharged due to non-compliance with court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to comply with both the mandatory timelines set by the Court of Appeal Rules and a specific court order requiring the filing of a record of appeal within 45 days. No record of appeal was filed within the prescribed period or at all. The court found that the notice of appeal had lapsed and 'died a natural death' due to inaction and lack of prosecution by the respondent. The court emphasized the importance of timely prosecution of appeals and the need to avoid unnecessary delays in the administration of justice. Consequently, the notice of appeal was struck out and costs awarded to the applicant.

Court Disposition

application allowed; notice of appeal struck out; costs to applicant

Orders

  • The notice of appeal dated 16th August 2013 is struck out.
  • Costs of the motion are awarded to the applicant.