[2020] KECA 315 (KLR)

[2020] KECA 315 (KLR)

The court found that the 2nd respondent, after lodging the Notice of Appeal, failed to take any further steps to institute the appeal within the prescribed 60 days. There was no evidence of a letter requesting proceedings, nor was there any indication that such a letter was copied to the applicant as required by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KECA 315 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter Kagunza Adaji; Respondent: Sikuku Martin Maiyo; Respondent: Margaret Chesang Maiyo
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 36 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed. Notice of Appeal struck out. Costs awarded to the applicant.
Judges
GG Okwengu, A Mohammed, S ole Kantai
Legal Topics
Notice of Appeal, Striking Out Proceedings, Appeal Timelines, Environment and Land Court
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Notice of Appeal Striking Out Proceedings Appeal Timelines Environment and Land Court

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

Peter Kagunza Adaji

Applicant

Sikuku Martin Maiyo

Respondent

Margaret Chesang Maiyo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the Notice of Appeal should be struck out for failure to institute an appeal within the prescribed time period.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents complied with the requirements of Rule 82 regarding the application for proceedings and service of the letter bespeaking proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs of the Motion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 2nd respondent, after lodging the Notice of Appeal, failed to take any further steps to institute the appeal within the prescribed 60 days. There was no evidence of a letter requesting proceedings, nor was there any indication that such a letter was copied to the applicant as required by Rule 82. The absence of these steps meant that the computation of time was not suspended, and the time for instituting the appeal lapsed. Consequently, the Notice of Appeal was liable to be struck out under Rule 83 for failure to take an essential step within the prescribed time. The court therefore allowed the application and struck out the Notice of Appeal, awarding costs to the...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Notice of Appeal struck out. Costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • The Notice of Appeal lodged by the 2nd respondent at the Environment and Land Court, Kitale, is hereby struck out.
  • The applicant will have costs of the Motion.