[2024] KEHC 13216 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 13216 (KLR)

The appeal was struck out because the appellants failed to file the mandatory documents required by Order 42 Rule 13(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, specifically the trial court proceedings and judgment. Despite being granted multiple opportunities and extensions to comply, the appellants did not remedy the defect....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 13216 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: James Mubira Mwangi; Appellant: Moses Wambani; Respondent: Isaac Mutinda (Minor Suing through Father and Next Friend Boniface Amudala Isaya)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit E131 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal struck out
Judges
JN Mulwa
Legal Topics
Record of Appeal Requirements, Appeal Striking Out, Mandatory Documents, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Record of Appeal Requirements Appeal Striking Out Mandatory Documents Procedural Compliance

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

James Mubira Mwangi

Appellant

Moses Wambani

Appellant

Isaac Mutinda (Minor Suing through Father and Next Friend Boniface Amudala Isaya)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the appeal is competent in the absence of mandatory documents required under Order 42 Rule 13(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether failure to file the trial court proceedings and judgment renders the appeal fatally defective.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was struck out because the appellants failed to file the mandatory documents required by Order 42 Rule 13(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, specifically the trial court proceedings and judgment. Despite being granted multiple opportunities and extensions to comply, the appellants did not remedy the defect. The absence of these documents rendered the appeal incomplete and fatally defective, as the court could not properly determine the appeal without them. The Supreme Court precedent reinforced that omission of such documents makes the appeal incompetent. Accordingly, the court found no basis to allow the appeal to proceed and struck it out.

Court Disposition

appeal struck out

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out for want of compliance with Order 42 Rule 13(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • No order as to costs.