[2022] KECA 815 (KLR)
The court determined that there was no evidence on record to confirm that the application for extension of time had been served on the respondents. In the absence of proof of service, the court could not proceed to prepare a ruling on the merits of the application. The matter was therefore deferred, and directions...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KECA 815 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Maosa Nyangau; Respondent: National Police Service Commission; Respondent: Inspector General National Police Service; Respondent: Deputy Inspector General Kenya Police Service; Respondent: Attorney General
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application E146 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice of Appeal
- Outcome
- Directions issued; no substantive determination on the application until service is proved.
- Judges
- F Tuiyott
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Service of Process, Notice of Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Maosa Nyangau
Applicant
National Police Service Commission
Respondent
Inspector General National Police Service
Respondent
Deputy Inspector General Kenya Police Service
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant served the application for extension of time on the respondents as required by law.
- 2 What directions should be given where service of the application is in doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that there was no evidence on record to confirm that the application for extension of time had been served on the respondents. In the absence of proof of service, the court could not proceed to prepare a ruling on the merits of the application. The matter was therefore deferred, and directions were issued to ensure that the issue of service is resolved before any substantive determination is made. The applicant was directed to prove service at a future date before the Deputy Registrar, failing which further directions on service and subsequent steps would be issued.
Court Disposition
Directions issued; no substantive determination on the application until service is proved.
Orders
- The matter shall be fixed for further directions before the Deputy Registrar on a date to be communicated to the parties.
- At the date of directions, the applicant shall be required to prove that the application was served; if proved, the matter shall be placed before the judge for preparation of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Nyangau v National Police Service Commission & 3 others (Civil Application E146 of 2021) [2022] KECA 815 (KLR) (28 April 2022) (Order)
Neutral citation: [2022] KECA 815 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Civil Application E146 of 2021
F Tuiyott, JA
April 28, 2022
Between
Peter Maosa Nyangau
Applicant
and
National Police Service Commission
1st Respondent
Inspector General National Police Service
2nd Respondent
Deputy Inspector General Kenya Police Service
3rd Respondent
Attorney General
4th Respondent
(An application for extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal out of time against the judgment/decree (Mathews N. Nduma, J) dated and delivered on 30th January, 2020 in Bungoma ELRC Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2018 Environment & Land Case 5 of 2018 )
Order
1As I sat down to prepare the Ruling herein, I noticed an email dated 18th January, 2022 written by counsel for the respondent to counsel for the applicant and copied to Court complaining that the Respondent was yet to be served with the application, the subject of the intended Ruling.
2. I got in touch with the Deputy Registrar over the matter but she could not find evidence that the application had indeed been served on the respondent. It being so, I decided not to proceed with the preparation of the Ruling until the issue of service was resolved.
3. I now give the following directions: -[3. 1]This matter shall be fixed for further directions before the Deputy Registrar on a date to be communicated to the parties by the Deputy Registrar.[3. 2]At that date of the directions, the applicant shall be required to prove that the application was indeed served and if so the matter shall be placed before me for preparation of the Ruling.[3. 3]If service is not proved, then the Deputy Registrar shall issue further directions on service, filing of responses and submissions and re-list the matter for hearing before me on priority basis.
MADE AT KISUMU THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022. F. TUIYOTT............................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.Signed.DEPUTY REGISTRAR