[2024] KECA 1453 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's notice of motion was an omnibus application, improperly combining a request for extension of time (which should be heard by a single judge) and a request for stay of execution (which should be heard by a full bench). This procedural defect rendered the application incompetent....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KECA 1453 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dr Ferdinand Chirure Nyongesa; Respondent: Masinde Muliro University Of Science & Technology; Respondent: The Chair of Masinde Muliro University of Science & Technology; Respondent: Vice Chancellor Masinde Muliro University Of Science & Technology; Interested Party: Dr Janett N Kasilly; Interested Party: Dr Bernadette Sabuni; Interested Party: John Muhehe; Interested Party: Dr Alexander Khaemba; Interested Party: Dr Joseph Nasongo Wamoche; Interested Party: Dr Judah Ndiku
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application E125 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Single Judge Ruling on Omnibus Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application struck out as defective
- Judges
- HM Okwengu
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Omnibus Application, Service of Process
- 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
Dr Ferdinand Chirure Nyongesa
Applicant
Masinde Muliro University Of Science & Technology
Respondent
The Chair of Masinde Muliro University of Science & Technology
Respondent
Vice Chancellor Masinde Muliro University Of Science & Technology
Respondent
Dr Janett N Kasilly
Interested Party
Dr Bernadette Sabuni
Interested Party
John Muhehe
Interested Party
Dr Alexander Khaemba
Interested Party
Dr Joseph Nasongo Wamoche
Interested Party
Dr Judah Ndiku
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Single Judge Ruling on Omnibus Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's omnibus application seeking both extension of time and stay of execution is properly before a single judge.
- 2 Whether the applicant complied with the court's directions regarding service of the hearing notice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's notice of motion was an omnibus application, improperly combining a request for extension of time (which should be heard by a single judge) and a request for stay of execution (which should be heard by a full bench). This procedural defect rendered the application incompetent. Furthermore, the applicant failed to comply with the court's direction to serve the hearing notice as required. Consequently, the court struck out the application, but granted the applicant liberty to file a proper application in accordance with the rules.
Court Disposition
application struck out as defective
Orders
- The application is struck out as defective.
- The applicant is at liberty to file an appropriate application in accordance with the rules of the Court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
Nyongesa v Masinde Muliro University of Science & Technology & 2 others; Kasilly & 5 others (Interested Parties) (Civil Application E125 of 2023) [2024] KECA 1453 (KLR) (18 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KECA 1453 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Civil Application E125 of 2023
HM Okwengu, JA
October 18, 2024
Between
Dr Ferdinand Chirure Nyongesa
Applicant
and
Masinde Muliro University Of Science & Technology
1st Respondent
The Chair of Masinde Muliro University of Science & Technology
2nd Respondent
Vice Chancellor Masind Muliro University Of Science & Technology
3rd Respondent
and
Dr Janett N Kasilly
Interested Party
Dr Bernadette Sabuni
Interested Party
John Muhehe
Interested Party
Dr Alexander Khaemba
Interested Party
Dr Joseph Nasongo Wamoche
Interested Party
Dr Judah Ndiku
Interested Party
(Being an application under Section 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21; Rule 3, 4, 5(2)(b), 43 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Page 2 of 4 Rules, 2022)
Ruling
1. This matter was listed before me as a single Judge, for hearing of a Notice of Motion dated 17th May, 2023, seeking in the first instance, extension of time for the applicant to file a memorandum of appeal, and secondly, an order for stay of execution of the judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC), delivered on 26th January, 2023, pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
2. The applicant who is dissatisfied with the judgment of the ELRC dismissing his petition against the respondents, in which he challenged the decision of Masinde Muliro University of Science & Technology (1st respondent), Vice Chancellor Masinde Muliro University of Science & Technology (2nd respondent) and the Chair of Council Masinde Muliro University of Science & Technology (3rd respondent), appointing and or promoting the 1st to 6th interested parties. The applicant was directed by the Executive Officer of the Court through an email dated 8th October, 2024 to serve the respondents with a hearing notice and to file an affidavit of service. The applicant has availed an affidavit of service in which he depones that he served his notice of motion and the accompanying documents through email dated 10th July, 2023, on the email of the 2nd respondent, Vice Chancellor Masinde Muliro and also on the email of a Counsel representing Attorney General.
3. The applicant has also filed another affidavit of service duly sworn by one George Ongaro, a licensed Court Process Server on 11th April, 2024. The process server swears that he served the applicant’s motion and the supporting documents on 8th April, 2024, on the respondents, through the legal department of the 1st respondent, Masinde Muliro University of Science & Technology; the documents were received on behalf of all the respondents and the interested parties. The process server also swears that he also personally served Mr. John Muhehe, the 1st interested party in person on the 9th April, 2024.
4. There is no affidavit of service that has been placed before me for service of the hearing notice as directed by the Deputy Registrar of the Court on 8th October, 2024. Be that as it may, I have perused the notice of motion filed by the applicant, and find that it is an omnibus application, as it seeks extension of time which under Rule 55(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, should be heard by a single Judge, and also seeks an order for stay of execution pending appeal which under Rule 55(2)(a), should be heard by a full bench of the Court.
5. In the circumstances, the application is defective and the same is struck out. The applicant is at liberty to file an appropriate application in accordance with the rules of the Court.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024. HANNAH OKWENGU…………………………………JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the originalSignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR