[2012] KEHC 5299 (KLR)
The court found that none of the orders cited in the Notice of Motion fell within the ambit of Order 43(1) & (2) (previously Order 42(1)(2)) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which enumerate orders appealable as of right. Therefore, leave of the trial court was a mandatory precondition for lodging an appeal. Since the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 5299 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Robert Kiprop Kipsang; Respondent: Richard Kosgei
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 110 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- A Mshila
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction of Appellate Court, Preliminary Objection, Civil Procedure 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
Robert Kiprop Kipsang
Appellant
Richard Kosgei
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal without leave of the trial court as required by the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the orders appealed from fall within the category requiring leave to appeal under the relevant provisions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that none of the orders cited in the Notice of Motion fell within the ambit of Order 43(1) & (2) (previously Order 42(1)(2)) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which enumerate orders appealable as of right. Therefore, leave of the trial court was a mandatory precondition for lodging an appeal. Since the appellant neither sought nor obtained such leave, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The preliminary objection raised a clear point of law on jurisdiction, and the appeal was therefore struck out as incompetent.
Court Disposition
appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The preliminary objection is upheld.
- The appeal is struck out as incompetent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 110 OF 2010
ROBERT KIPROP KIPSANG……………………...…………………..APPELLANT
VERSUS
RICHARD KOSGEI………………………………….....……………RESPONDENT
RULING
The Preliminary Objection is dated the 2nd November, 2010 and has been brought and raised by Counsel for the Respondents, herein.
A brief summary of the initial suit is as follows:
On the 26th April, 2010 in CMCC NO. 207/2009 the Appellant filed a Notice of Motion under Order XLIV rule 1 and 2, Order XXI rule 10, Order III rule 9 and Order L of the Old Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and all other enabling provisions of the law.
The application was before Honourable Nathan Shiundu and on the 14th June, 2010 the same was disallowed.
The Appellant being aggrieved with the decision of the trial court filed the appeal herein on the 22nd June, 2010 challenging the entire decision.
The Preliminary Objection is to the effect that this appellate court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as no leave was sought or granted by the trial court as required under Order 42 rule (1) and (2) of the old Civil Procedure Rules (now Order 43 rule (1) and (2) of the new Civil Procedure Rules.) Nor was leave granted pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21).
Learned Counsel for the Respondent’s prayer was that the appeal be struck out with costs to the Respondent.
I have perused the Notice of Motion dated the 26th April, 2010 which was brought under Order XLIV Rule 1 & 2 Order XXI Rule 10, Order III rule 9 and Order L and Section 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Rules and Civil Procedure Act, respectively, and all enabling provisions of the law.
I have also heard the submissions and arguments of both Counsels for the Appellant and Respondent.
I am inclined to agree with Counsel for the Respondent and I state that the said Notice of Motion can only be described as “ECLECTIC” as it embraces many orders. Nevertheless none of the said orders fall under the ambit of Order 43(1) & (2) previously order 42(1)(2) of the old Civil Procedure Rules. Therefore leave of the trial court is a pre-requisite before any appeal can be lodged.
The Preliminary Objection raises a clear point of law on jurisdiction. The Notice of Motions heading is clear and speaks for itself.
The Preliminary Objection is therefore upheld and I find that this Honourable court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
The appeal is hereby struck out as being incompetent. Costs to the Respondent.
Dated and Delivered on this 30Th day of January 2012.
A.MSHILA
JUDGE