[2021] KECA 787 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 787 (KLR)

The Court found that the respondents had properly served the applicant’s advocate with the letter requesting certified copies of proceedings and judgment, as evidenced by the advocate’s stamp on the letter. The certificate of delay was valid, having been issued by the Registrar of the ELRC. Although the record of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 787 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Margaret Abukutsa Vidolo; Respondent: Orkistudio Company Limited; Respondent: Allan Brooks
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal (Application) 148 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Application / Application to Strike Out Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
GG Okwengu, GK Oenga, F Sichale
Legal Topics
Appeal Timelines, Service of Documents, Certificate of Delay, Extension of Time
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Employment and Labour Appeal Timelines Service of Documents Certificate of Delay Extension of Time

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Abukutsa Vidolo

Applicant

Orkistudio Company Limited

Respondent

Allan Brooks

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Application / Application to Strike Out Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the respondents failed to serve the applicant with the letter requesting certified proceedings and judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the certificate of delay relied upon by the respondents is invalid.
  3. 3 Whether the record of appeal was filed outside the prescribed period and if so, whether the respondents are entitled to benefit from the proviso to Rule 82(1) and Rule 82(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondents had properly served the applicant’s advocate with the letter requesting certified copies of proceedings and judgment, as evidenced by the advocate’s stamp on the letter. The certificate of delay was valid, having been issued by the Registrar of the ELRC. Although the record of appeal was not filed within the prescribed 60 days, the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Rule 82(1) as read with Rule 82(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which allows exclusion of the period required for preparation and supply of proceedings. The respondents had also filed an application for extension of time, which was pending. Therefore, the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to strike out the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.