[2020] KECA 294 (KLR)

[2020] KECA 294 (KLR)

The Court found that the 1st respondent failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for serving the notice of appeal within the prescribed period and did not file the record and memorandum of appeal within sixty days. Additionally, the substantive suit in the High Court had been dismissed for want of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KECA 294 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: South Eastern Kenya University; Respondent: Ukamba Agricultural Institute; Respondent: Dubai Bank Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 93 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application allowed; notice of appeal struck out
Judges
FI Koome, AK Murgor, A Mohammed
Legal Topics
Notice of Appeal, Service of Process, Locus Standi, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Notice of Appeal Service of Process Locus Standi Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South Eastern Kenya University

Applicant

Ukamba Agricultural Institute

Respondent

Dubai Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out for failure to serve within the prescribed period under Rule 77(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has locus standi to seek the striking out of the notice of appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the notice of appeal is rendered redundant due to the dismissal of the substantive suit for want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the 1st respondent failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for serving the notice of appeal within the prescribed period and did not file the record and memorandum of appeal within sixty days. Additionally, the substantive suit in the High Court had been dismissed for want of prosecution, rendering the notice of appeal redundant. The 1st respondent did not oppose the application and confirmed that the notice of appeal was otiose. In these circumstances, the Court exercised its discretion to strike out the notice of appeal, as it served no practical purpose and procedural rules had not been followed.

Court Disposition

application allowed; notice of appeal struck out

Orders

  • The notice of appeal dated 21st December, 2017 is struck out.
  • No order as to costs.