[1981] KECA 31 (KLR)

[1981] KECA 31 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was fundamentally defective due to the appellant's failure to serve notice of appeal on the respondent, to include a decree in the record of appeal, and to provide the documentary evidence exhibited at trial. The appellant's advocate did not take timely steps to regularize...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1981] KECA 31 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Nduti; Respondent: Ng'ang'a
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 6 of 1980
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent.
Legal Topics
Appeal Record Requirements, Service of Notice of Appeal, Extension of Time, Striking Out Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeal Record Requirements Service of Notice of Appeal Extension of Time Striking Out Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nduti

Appellant

Ng'ang'a

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Hearing

  1. 1 Whether the appeal is competent in the absence of service of notice of appeal on the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to include a decree and documentary evidence in the record of appeal renders the appeal fatally defective.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant should be granted an extension of time to remedy the defects in the record of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was fundamentally defective due to the appellant's failure to serve notice of appeal on the respondent, to include a decree in the record of appeal, and to provide the documentary evidence exhibited at trial. The appellant's advocate did not take timely steps to regularize these defects, and the informal application for extension of time was made only three days before the hearing. The court found that no sufficient reason had been shown under Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal to justify the exercise of its discretion in favour of the appellant. Consequently, the court declined to grant any indulgence and ordered that the appeal be struck...

Court Disposition

Appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out as incompetent.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent, including costs of the notice of motion and the appellant's informal application.