[2008] KECA 111 (KLR)

[2008] KECA 111 (KLR)

The Court found that the applicant's address for service was clearly provided in the Notice of Appeal, the Memorandum of Appeal, and the record of appeal. There was no requirement for the applicant to provide a further notice of address for service under rule 78, as the address was already known and used throughout...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KECA 111 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Mohamed Hasham Ali Mohamed t/a Kitale Autospares; Respondent: Central Bank of Kenya; Respondent: Charterhouse Bank Ltd; Respondent: Ratilal Automobiles Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 228 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Record of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal struck out with costs to the applicant.
Judges
JA Aluoch
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Appeal Timelines, Court of Appeal Rules
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Service of Process Appeal Timelines Court of Appeal Rules

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Hasham Ali Mohamed t/a Kitale Autospares

Appellant

Central Bank of Kenya

Respondent

Charterhouse Bank Ltd

Respondent

Ratilal Automobiles Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the record of appeal should be struck out for failure to serve within the prescribed period under the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to rely on non-compliance with rule 78 regarding notice of address for service as a defence for late service.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant's address for service was clearly provided in the Notice of Appeal, the Memorandum of Appeal, and the record of appeal. There was no requirement for the applicant to provide a further notice of address for service under rule 78, as the address was already known and used throughout the proceedings. The appellant's reliance on rule 78 to justify late service was therefore unfounded. The record of appeal was served almost 12 days after the period allowed by the rules, and no sufficient reason was provided for this delay. Consequently, the record of appeal was incompetent and was struck out with costs to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Appeal struck out with costs to the applicant.

Orders

  • The record of appeal lodged on 24th October 2007 is struck out with costs.