[2019] KEHC 7165 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had previously sought leave to file an appeal out of time in a miscellaneous application, which was dismissed. The applicant did not appeal or seek review of that dismissal. Therefore, the present application for leave to file a memorandum of cross appeal out of time is barred by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 7165 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Tabitha Nyambura Ndungu; Appellant: Freda Njambi Kimani; Respondent: Rose Nyambura Kamande
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 166 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Leave to File Cross Appeal Out of Time and for Security for Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- CW Meoli
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Security for Appeal, Res Judicata, Cross Appeal, Decretal Sum
- 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
Tabitha Nyambura Ndungu
Appellant
Freda Njambi Kimani
Appellant
Rose Nyambura Kamande
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Leave to File Cross Appeal Out of Time and for Security for Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file a memorandum of cross appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the respondents should be ordered to deposit the decretal sum as security for appeal.
- 3 Whether the application is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had previously sought leave to file an appeal out of time in a miscellaneous application, which was dismissed. The applicant did not appeal or seek review of that dismissal. Therefore, the present application for leave to file a memorandum of cross appeal out of time is barred by the doctrine of res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the primary prayer for leave cannot be granted, the ancillary prayer for security for the decretal sum must also fail. The court held that the applicant was aware of the pending appeal at the time of payment and cannot now seek to reverse the position. The application was dismissed in its entirety...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 28th February 2018 is dismissed with costs to the appellants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIAMBU
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 166 OF 2016
TABITHA NYAMBURA NDUNGU................1ST APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
FREDA NJAMBI KIMANI..........................2ND APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
ROSE NYAMBURA KAMANDE...................RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
R U L I N G
1. This is an application by way of Notice of Motion filed on 28th February, 2018 and expressed, to be brought under Order 42, Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, Sections 98, 1, 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act seeking for orders:
“a) That this Honourable court be pleased to allow the Applicant leave to file his Memorandum of Cross Appeal out of time in the Respondents’ appeal herein.
b) That this honourable court be pleased to order the Respondents herein to furnish security of appeal by depositing in court the entire decretal sum of Kshs. 710,030/= already paid to them by the Applicant.
c) That upon grant of prayer a & b above, the draft Memorandum of Cross Appeal attached herein be deemed as duly filed and served on the Respondents”.
2. ALLAN ODONGO swore a supporting affidavit as the advocate with the conduct of this matter, on behalf of the Respondent/Applicant. The Application is premised on the grounds that judgment was delivered in favour of the Appellants/Respondents and they were paid a sum of Kshs. 716,404/= but have filed the instant appeal, hence the need for the Applicant to file his Memorandum of Cross Appeal.
3. Allan Odongo in his supporting affidavit filed on 28/02/2018, deposed that judgment was delivered in favour of the Appellants against the Respondents who filed an application seeking leave to appeal out of time but the same was dismissed, and in the circumstances, the Applicants proceeded to pay the decretal sum of Kshs. 716,404/= to the Appellants who have since filed their record of appeal and as such, the Applicant wishes to file his Memorandum of cross appeal out of time.
4. KIMAMO MUCHIRI filed a replying affidavit together with the grounds of opposition on behalf of the Appellants. He confirmed that decretal sum was paid to the Appellants and stated that the Respondent has not demonstrated why the Appellants should deposit the decretal sum in court. He said the Respondent was guilty of delay and has not shown sufficient cause for not filing the memorandum of Cross Appeal on time or shown what prejudice he would suffer if the application is not allowed.
5. The application was canvassed by way of oral submissions. Miss Muragwa, counsel for the Respondent wished to rely on her application as well as her supporting affidavit. Mr. Kimamo, counsel for the Appellants submitted that the application is misconceived as a similar application was earlier dismissed.
6. The court has considered the Respondent’s motion and material canvassed for and an in opposition thereto. There is no dispute that the decretal sum awarded in the lower court was paid over to the Appellants in or about August 2017, therefore during the pendency of the instant appeal, preferred by the Appellants through the memorandum of appeal filed on 21st November 2016. And that in February, 2017 the Respondent had unsuccessfully moved the court in a miscellaneous application seeking leave to file an appeal out of time. Indeed, it is upon the dismissal of the said motion that the Respondent paid up the decretal sum. The dismissal decision was not appealed against. Neither did the Respondent seek review of the dismissal order.
7. Therefore, by dint of the provisions of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act prayer 1 and 3 of the motion before me is res judicata. And it follows that, if prayer (1) cannot be granted, the prayer for security by way of deposit of the decretal sum cannot succeed. At the time the decretal sum was paid over to the Appellants, the Respondent was aware of existence of the instant appeal and the fact that it had not been compromised, despite the payment being made. It is too late in the day for the Respondent to seek a surrender of the funds paid out to the Appellants.
8. All in all, it is my considered view that the motion filed on 28th February 2018 must fail and be dismissed with costs. I so order.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT KIAMBU THIS 30TH DAY OF MAY 2019
……………………………………….
C. MEOLI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
No appearance for the Appellants
No appearance for the Respondent
Court Assistants – Kevin/Nancy