[1999] KECA 46 (KLR)
The court held that Rule 93 of the Court of Appeal Rules does not apply to applications, as it is specifically tailored for appeals. However, in the absence of any express provision in the Rules regarding the withdrawal of applications, and since the respondent did not object, the court exercised its inherent...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] KECA 46 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Reuben Njuguna Nyumu; Respondent: Nelly Wagio Njuguna
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 169 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Record of Appeal; Withdrawal of Application
- Outcome
- Application withdrawn with leave of the court; costs to the respondent.
- Judges
- E Owuor
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Withdrawal of Application, Court of Appeal Rules
- 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
Reuben Njuguna Nyumu
Applicant
Nelly Wagio Njuguna
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Record of Appeal; Withdrawal of Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant can withdraw a Notice of Motion for extension of time to file a record of appeal under the Court of Appeal Rules.
- 2 Whether Rule 93 of the Court of Appeal Rules applies to applications as opposed to appeals.
- 3 Whether the court has discretion to allow withdrawal of an application in the absence of express rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that Rule 93 of the Court of Appeal Rules does not apply to applications, as it is specifically tailored for appeals. However, in the absence of any express provision in the Rules regarding the withdrawal of applications, and since the respondent did not object, the court exercised its inherent discretion to allow the withdrawal of the application. The court found no reason to prevent the withdrawal and granted leave for the application to be withdrawn, awarding costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
Application withdrawn with leave of the court; costs to the respondent.
Orders
- Leave is granted for the application to be withdrawn.
- The respondent shall have the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: OWUOR J.A. (IN CHAMBERS)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 169 OF 1998
BETWEEN
REUBEN NJUGUNANYUMU......................................APPLICANT
AND NELLY WAGIO NJUGUNA.....................................RESPONDENT
(Application for extension of time to file Record of Appeal from a Ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr. Justice Githinji) dated 17th March,1997 in H.C. SUCCESSION NO. 513 OF 1992) ***************** RULING
While in the process of canvassing a Notice of Motion brought by the applicant under Rule 9 of the Courts Rules for extension of time to file a record of appeal out of time, Mr. Katwa now applies to withdraw the same purportedly under Rule 93. He has made no indication to the Court as to why he wishes to withdraw the application. Nor did Mr. Kiage appearing for the Respondent demand from him the reason why he was withdrawing the application. I have noted that the litigation in respect of which the application and indeed the intended appeal arise from, is a very unpalatable litigation going on between two very close members of a family, namely a father-in-law and a daughter-in-law . Rule 93 as contended by Mr Kiage applies to appeals, it clearly lays out what an appellant should do when desirous of terminating his appeal. If the opposing party is agreeable a consent letter is then filed. If on the other hand he meets with opposition then an application is made in court before the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal.
There are provisions not made in respect of applications before the court I agree with Mr. Kiage that in the absence of similar provisions in respect of withdrawing of application in this Court's Rules an order in terms of Rule 93 is not available to the applicant. Nor is the same available tot he applicant pursuant to section of Cap. 21 as contended by Mr. Katwa.That notwithstanding I am satisfied that in this case where Mr. Kiage has not objected to the withdrawal of the application and I can find no particular reason to stop me from exercising my discretion in favour of the applicant. I can and do hereby grant leave for the application to be withdrawn in terms of rule (3) of the Courts Rules. The Respondent shall have costs of the application.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 22nd day of January,
E. OWUOR
..................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR