[2005] KECA 283 (KLR)

[2005] KECA 283 (KLR)

The Court found that the certificate of delay issued by the Deputy Registrar, certifying the period from 1st July 2003 to 8th July 2005 as necessary for the preparation and delivery of proceedings, was valid and unchallenged by any acceptable evidence. The applicant's assertion that the certificate was issued to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KECA 283 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter Kinyua Muchendu; Respondent: Getrude Chao Waita
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 39 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Appeal Timelines, Certificate of Delay, Striking Out Notice, Court of Appeal Rules
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeal Timelines Certificate of Delay Striking Out Notice Court of Appeal Rules

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Kinyua Muchendu

Applicant

Getrude Chao Waita

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the period certified by the Deputy Registrar for preparation and delivery of proceedings should be excluded in computing the time to file the record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there is sufficient evidence to challenge the validity of the Deputy Registrar's certificate of delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the certificate of delay issued by the Deputy Registrar, certifying the period from 1st July 2003 to 8th July 2005 as necessary for the preparation and delivery of proceedings, was valid and unchallenged by any acceptable evidence. The applicant's assertion that the certificate was issued to defeat the motion was unsupported. Therefore, the period certified was properly excluded from the computation of time for filing the record of appeal, and the application to strike out the notice of appeal lacked merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The notice of motion to strike out the notice of appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.