[2015] KEHC 713 (KLR)
The appeal was filed more than two and a half years after the judgment without leave of the court as required by Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. The appellant's previous application for leave to file the appeal out of time was dismissed and the dismissal order remains in force. Granting leave at this stage...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 713 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Sammy K. Kirui; Respondent: Remmy K. Korir
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 18 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Out of Time, Leave to Appeal, Striking Out Pleadings
- 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
Sammy K. Kirui
Appellant
Remmy K. Korir
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal was filed out of time without leave of the court as required under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act.
- 2 Whether the court can grant leave to appeal out of time after a previous application for leave was dismissed and not set aside.
- 3 Whether the appeal is incompetent and should be struck out.
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was filed more than two and a half years after the judgment without leave of the court as required by Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. The appellant's previous application for leave to file the appeal out of time was dismissed and the dismissal order remains in force. Granting leave at this stage would amount to sitting on appeal over the previous dismissal order, which this court cannot do. As a result, the appeal is incompetent for want of leave and is struck out with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The appeal is struck out with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
CIVIL APPEAL NO.18 OF 2012
SAMMY K. KIRUI.................................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REMMY K. KORIR.............................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G.
This is the Notice of Motion dated 10th February, 2015 seeking an Order to strike out the appeal filed herein.
Several grounds have been set out on the face of the application as follows;
1. That the purported appeal was filed out of time without seeking leave as provided for Under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) Laws of Kenya.
2. That the appellant did not cause the matter to be placed before Judge for directions within thirty days as provided for under Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010.
3. That the appellant did not serve the Respondent with the memorandum of appeal within seven days or at all as provided for under Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, and the appellant did not cause the appeal to be listed for directions as provided for under Rule 13(1) of the said Rules.
4. That the appeal was filed with the sole purpose of delaying execution proceedings in the lower court.
5. That the appeal is mischievous, frivolous, vexatious, unlawful, contemptuous and an abuse and misuse of the judicial process.
The Application is supported by the sworn affidavit of Respondent/Applicant. He sets out the history of the matter before the lower Court.
The Appellant/Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit opposing the application. He says the appeal filed herein is yet to be heard and there are stay orders issued by the Magistrate's Court.
It was Mr. Koskei's submission that the appeal herein was filed out of time and without leave of the Court.
A Misc. No. 13 of 2012 seeking leave to file appeal out of time was dismissed by the Court on 13th May, 2014. The lower Court file was then returned to Sotik Law Court for execution of the decree.
Mr. Nyaingiri for the Applicant/Respondent submitted admitting that there was no leave for filing appeal out of time.
He was therefore seeking leave to file the appeal out of time.
I have considered the application and the affidavits filed. I have also considered the submissions by both Counsel.
I will deal with the 1st ground in support of the application which states;
“That the purported appeal was filed out of time without seeking leave as provided for Under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) Laws of Kenya.”
Section 79 G of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) Laws of Kenya provides;
“Every appeal from a subordinate court to the High Court shall be filed within a period of thirty days from the date of the decree or order appealed against, excluding from such period any time which the lower court may certify as having been requisite for the preparation and delivery to the appellant of a copy of the decree or order.
Provided that an appeal may be admitted out of time if the appellant satisfied the court that he had good and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.”
Though the period of filing an appeal is 30 days from the date of judgment there is provision for leave to be sought where one is unable to meet that time limit.
The judgment the subject of this appeal was delivered on 21st October, 2009. The Appeal herein was filed on 30th April, 2012 which was two and a half (2 ½) years after delivery of the judgment.
It is admitted that no leave was sought prior to the filing of this appeal.
Its further admitted that the Appellant/Respondent did file Kericho High Court Civil Misc. Application No.13 of 2012 seeking leave to file appeal out of time.
The said Application was never prosecuted and it was dismissed for want of attendance and Prosecution on 13th May, 2014 by Justice J. K. Sergon.
The lower Court file was then returned to Sotik Law Court.
The dismissal Orders by Justice Sergon have to date not been overturned or set aside. The Appellant/Respondent is now asking the Court to grant him leave to appeal out of time.
It would be an affront to justice and fair administration of justice to do so, as the Orders by Justice Sergon made on 13th May, 2014 still stand. It would amount to this Court sitting on an appeal of the said orders of 13th May, 2014.
What is clear is that the Appellant/Respondent filed this appeal out of time and without leave of the Court allowing him to do so.
The appeal is therefore incompetent and is hereby struck out with costs.
DELIVERED, SIGNED AND DATED THIS 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015.
................................
H.I.ONG'UDI
JUDGE