[2004] KECA 80 (KLR)

[2004] KECA 80 (KLR)

The Court found that the respondents, after filing a notice of appeal on 8th January 2002, took no further steps to prosecute the appeal apart from a single letter requesting certified copies of proceedings and judgment. No action was taken from 3rd July 2002 to the date of the ruling, and the respondents failed to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] KECA 80 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: The Registrar of Trade Unions; Applicant: Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union; Respondent: Kenya Tea Workers Union; Respondent: Thomas Anyonje; Respondent: Lawrence Oyaro; Respondent: Humphrey Karari; Respondent: Rahab Ngige; Respondent: Milton Ochieng; Respondent: David Maina Mugwe; Respondent: Albert Odongo
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 181 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
notice of appeal struck out with costs to the 2nd applicant
Judges
AM Githinji
Legal Topics
Notice of Appeal, Striking Out Proceedings, Appeal Timelines
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Notice of Appeal Striking Out Proceedings Appeal Timelines

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

The Registrar of Trade Unions

Applicant

Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union

Applicant

Kenya Tea Workers Union

Respondent

Thomas Anyonje

Respondent

Lawrence Oyaro

Respondent

Humphrey Karari

Respondent

Rahab Ngige

Respondent

Milton Ochieng

Respondent

David Maina Mugwe

Respondent

Albert Odongo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' notice of appeal should be struck out for failure to take steps to prosecute the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents demonstrated any intention to pursue the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondents, after filing a notice of appeal on 8th January 2002, took no further steps to prosecute the appeal apart from a single letter requesting certified copies of proceedings and judgment. No action was taken from 3rd July 2002 to the date of the ruling, and the respondents failed to appear at the hearing despite being served with notice. The Court concluded that the respondents were not interested in pursuing the appeal and that the continued existence of the notice of appeal was unjustified. Accordingly, the Court exercised its discretion to strike out the notice of appeal with costs to the 2nd applicant.

Court Disposition

notice of appeal struck out with costs to the 2nd applicant

Orders

  • The notice of appeal filed by the respondents is struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the 2nd applicant.