[2022] KEHC 12208 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 12208 (KLR)

The court found that the appeal was filed four days outside the statutory thirty-day period prescribed by section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, and no leave for extension of time was sought or granted. Furthermore, the order appealed from was not appealable as of right under Order 43 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 12208 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Mencia Management Limited; Respondent: Mary Matu t/a Eva Marie Surgicals; Respondent: Sabrina Holdings Limited; Respondent: Family Bank Limited; Respondent: Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E122 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Competence of Appeal
Outcome
appeal struck out as incompetent
Judges
DAS Majanja
Legal Topics
Appeal Out of Time, Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction of High Court, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Appeal Out of Time Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction of High Court Costs Award

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mencia Management Limited

Appellant

Mary Matu t/a Eva Marie Surgicals

Respondent

Sabrina Holdings Limited

Respondent

Family Bank Limited

Respondent

Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Competence of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appeal was filed within the statutory time limit under section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal was required and, if so, whether it was obtained.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal is competent in the absence of compliance with procedural requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appeal was filed four days outside the statutory thirty-day period prescribed by section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, and no leave for extension of time was sought or granted. Furthermore, the order appealed from was not appealable as of right under Order 43 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the appellant did not obtain leave to appeal as required by law. The combination of these procedural defects rendered the appeal incompetent. The court therefore struck out the appeal with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

appeal struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out with costs to the respondents.
  • The appellant shall pay costs of KES 20,000.00 to the 1st and 2nd respondents.