[2021] KECA 134 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 134 (KLR)

The Court found that the reference to 'Lady Justice E.K. Ogola' in the notice of appeal was a clear and inadvertent mistake, and that justice would best be served by allowing the amendment. The Court rejected the argument that a notice of appeal is not amenable to amendment, noting that this position was overtaken...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 134 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: National Land Commission; Respondent: Theresia Runji; Respondent: Marieta Gitonga Chege; Respondent: Naomi Kiio; Respondent: Sammy Macharia Kara; Respondent: Miritini Free Port Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 24 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Amend Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
SG Kairu
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Notice of Appeal, Court Jurisdiction, Procedural Technicalities
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Notice of Appeal Court Jurisdiction Procedural Technicalities

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Land Commission

Applicant

Theresia Runji

Respondent

Marieta Gitonga Chege

Respondent

Naomi Kiio

Respondent

Sammy Macharia Kara

Respondent

Miritini Free Port Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Amend Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether a notice of appeal is amenable to amendment under the Court of Appeal Rules and the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether a single judge of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain an application to amend a notice of appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the amendment sought would occasion prejudice to the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the reference to 'Lady Justice E.K. Ogola' in the notice of appeal was a clear and inadvertent mistake, and that justice would best be served by allowing the amendment. The Court rejected the argument that a notice of appeal is not amenable to amendment, noting that this position was overtaken by Article 159 of the Constitution, which prioritizes substantive justice over technicalities. The Court also held that Rule 53 of the Court of Appeal Rules grants a single judge jurisdiction to hear the application. No prejudice to the respondents was demonstrated, and the amendment was necessary to correct the record and facilitate the proper hearing of the appeal.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The application to amend the notice of appeal is allowed in terms of prayers 1 and 2 of the application dated 15th June 2020.
  • The applicant has 10 days from the date of delivery of this ruling to file and serve an amended notice of appeal correcting the title of the Judge.