[2008] KECA 187 (KLR)
The Court found that the respondent failed to lodge the appeal within the 60 days required by rule 81(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules and did not demonstrate that the period had been extended or that the extension had not expired. The respondent's lack of representation at the hearing and failure to take any steps...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KECA 187 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Solomon Anusu Makaya; Respondent: Nairobi City Council
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 313 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed; notice of appeal struck out with costs to the applicant
- Judges
- AM Githinji, CA Otieno
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Notice of Appeal, Court of Appeal Rules, Failure to Prosecute Appeal
- 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
Solomon Anusu Makaya
Applicant
Nairobi City Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent failed to take necessary steps to prosecute the intended appeal within the stipulated time under the Court of Appeal Rules.
- 2 Whether the Notice of Appeal should be struck out for want of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the respondent failed to lodge the appeal within the 60 days required by rule 81(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules and did not demonstrate that the period had been extended or that the extension had not expired. The respondent's lack of representation at the hearing and failure to take any steps to prosecute the appeal indicated a lack of seriousness in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and struck out the Notice of Appeal with costs to the applicant.
Court Disposition
application allowed; notice of appeal struck out with costs to the applicant
Orders
- The application dated 24th October 2002 and lodged on 12th November 2002 is allowed.
- The Notice of Appeal dated and lodged on 12th March 2002 is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPLI NO. 313 OF 2002
SOLOMON ANUSU MAKAYA ............................................APPLICANT
AND
NAIROBI CITY COUNCIL ...............................................RESPONDENT
(An application to strike out a Notice of Appeal from the
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Rawal, J) dated 6th March 2002
in
H.C.C.C. No. 2866 of 1995)
**********************
RULING OF THE COURT
The applicant, through his counsel T. T. Aswani, Advocate, filed in this Court an application by way of Notice of Motion on 12th November 2002 under rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules for striking out of the Notice of Appeal filed herein by the respondent on 12th March 2002.
The grounds on the face thereof and the averments in the affidavit in support were that though judgment in High Court Civil Case No. 2866 of 1995was delivered on 6th March 2002 and the Notice of Appeal filed on 12th March 2002 aforesaid and that the same respondent applied for copies of proceedings of that case on 11th March 2002, no other step had been taken to prosecute the intended appeal.
It stated further that in fact on 22nd August 2002 the applicant’s counsel gave notice of seven (7) days to the respondent of his intention to come to this Court with this application if the respondent took no steps to lodge the intended appeal but that no such step had been taken.
In this Court yesterday counsel addressed us and repeated what was contained in the grounds on the body of the application and the averments in the supporting affidavit. Though counsel for the respondent was served with the application and its legal officer swore a replying affidavit which was filed in Court on 10th April 2003, there was no representation for the said respondent on the date of hearing hereof though served with the hearing notice on 13th February, 2008.
In our view this is an application which, if the respondent was serious about the intended appeal, its counsel would have appeared to enlighten the Court on the contents of the replying affidavit. Failure to do so shows lack of seriousness in proceeding with the intended appeal.
Though we feel the applicant ought to have annexed copy of the judgment of the aforementioned superior court case to this application to show what the contents therein were, we are nevertheless satisfied that the respondent failed to lodge the appeal within the 60 days stipulated by rule 81(1) or to show that the 60 days has been extended by virtue of the proviso to rule 81(1) and that that extended time has not expired..
In the result we allow the application dated 24th October 2002 and lodged in this Court on 12th November 2002 and strike out the Notice of Appeal dated and lodged in Court on 12th March 2002 with costs to the applicant.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 27th day of June, 2008
E. M. GITHINJI
...................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
J. W. ONYANGO OTIENO
...................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
D. K. S. AGANYANYA
...................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a
true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR