[1998] KECA 243 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had already filed the notice of appeal within the prescribed time and had applied for a copy of the proceedings within 30 days, copying the letter to the other side. This action triggered the proviso to Rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules, which provides for an automatic extension...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] KECA 243 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mbugua Chege; Respondent: Kenya Commercial Bank; Respondent: Agricultural Finance Corporation; Respondent: David M. Karanja; Respondent: Henry M. Chege
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 254 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
- Outcome
- application struck out as premature with costs to the respondents
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Notice of Appeal
- 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
Mbugua Chege
Applicant
Kenya Commercial Bank
Respondent
Agricultural Finance Corporation
Respondent
David M. Karanja
Respondent
Henry M. Chege
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for extension of time to file the notice and record of appeal was premature.
- 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to an extension of time under the relevant rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had already filed the notice of appeal within the prescribed time and had applied for a copy of the proceedings within 30 days, copying the letter to the other side. This action triggered the proviso to Rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules, which provides for an automatic extension of time to file the appeal until the proceedings are supplied. Since the proceedings had not yet been supplied, the 60-day period for filing the appeal had not expired. Therefore, the application for extension of time was premature and unnecessary at this stage. The court accordingly struck out the application with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application struck out as premature with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application for extension of time is struck out as premature.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CORAM: LAKHA, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 254 OF 1997
BETWEEN
MBUGUA CHEGE ....................................... APPLICANT
AND
KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK
AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION
DAVID M. KARANJA
HENRY M. CHEGE .....................................RESPONDENTS
(Application for extension of time to file Noticeand Record of Appeal out of time in an intended appeal from a Ruling & of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Justice Bosire) dated 11th July, 1995 in H.C.C.C. NO. 810 OF 1989) **************
R U L I N G
The notice of appeal was filed within the prescribed time. The letter applying for a copy of the proceedings was made within 30 days and copied to the other side attracting the proviso to Rule 81 for an automatic extension of time to file the appeal. The proceedings have not yet been supplied so that the 60 days have not yet expired. This application is, therefore, premature. Accordingly, I strike it out with costs to the Respondents.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 22nd day of April,
1998.
A.A. LAKHA ....................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is
a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR