[2002] KEHC 109 (KLR)
The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate any special circumstances or serious questions of law that would justify granting leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Additionally, the application was filed almost seven months after the decision without adequate explanation for the delay. The applicants...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 109 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph B. Orengo; Applicant: Teresa Nyangweso Keng’otore; Respondent: The Public Trustee; Interested Party: Joyce Nyaboke Manoti
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1402 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Probate and Administration, Delay in Filing, Compliance With 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
Joseph B. Orengo
Applicant
Teresa Nyangweso Keng’otore
Applicant
The Public Trustee
Respondent
Joyce Nyaboke Manoti
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated special circumstances or serious questions of law to justify leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
- 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal was filed within the prescribed time and in compliance with the relevant procedural rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate any special circumstances or serious questions of law that would justify granting leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Additionally, the application was filed almost seven months after the decision without adequate explanation for the delay. The applicants also failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, including timely service of the application for certified copies of proceedings on the respondent. The court emphasized that compliance with procedural rules is essential and that the absence of such compliance renders the application fatally defective. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS)
CIV SUIT 1402 OF 98[1]
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD KENYATTA
ORENGO – DECEASED
JOSEPH B. ORENGO )
TERESA NYANGWESO KENG’OTORE )….…………… APPLICANTS
V E R S U S
THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE …………………………………. RESPONDENT
AND
JOYCE NYABOKE MANOTI…..……..…………. INTERESTED PARTY
R U L I N G
This application is seeking leave to appeal in Court of Appeal from this court’s decision of 25th February, 2002. It is made under Rule 73 of the Probate & Administration Rules made under the laws of Succession Act. Cap 160 (‘referred to herein as the Act’).
Section 50 of the Act only provides for appeals to this court from any order or decree made by a Resident Magistrate or by Kadhi. That is the reason for this application. Needless to say that as the legislature in its wisdom has not provided for right of appeal from the order or decree of this court, it did not intend to give the right of appeal in all and in ordinary circumstances. Thus in my humble view the applicant has to satisfy that the intended appeal involves special circumstances and serious question of law.
The applicants have failed to plead or aver any of such circumstance or ground before me.
Furthermore, the applicants intend to appeal to the Court of Appeal. A faltiori therefore, they shall have to show that they have complied with rules of the said court. In my view, they have not done so.
Rule 39 of the Court of Appeal Rules provides for the procedure to be followed by an applicant under the present circumstances.
It stipulates:-
“ 39. In civil matters-
(a) where an appeal lies with the leave of the superior court application for such leave may be made informally, at the time when the decision against which it is desired to appeal is given, or by motion or chamber summons according to the practice of the superior court, within fourteen days of such decision;
(b) where an appeal lies with the leave of the Court, application for such leave shall be made in the manner laid down in rules 42 and 43 within fourteen days of the decision against which it is desired to appeal or, where application for leave to appeal has been made to the superior court and refused within fourteen days of such refusal.
The decision of this court was made on 25th February, 2002. This application is filed on 2nd October, 2002. No explanation is offered to justify the delay of almost seven months in making this application.
An attempt is made to explain the same by stating that proceedings were obtained on 10th September 2002. But from record of this court, the letter applying for certified copies of proceedings (and not of the Ruling) was filed on 25th February, 2002. But it is apparent from reading the application from the court record that the same was not copied to the Advocates of the Respondent herein. Once again the applicants have not complied with the provisions of Rule 81 (2) of Appeal Rules which is worded in mandatory format and requires the copy of application for certified copies to be sent to the Respondent. I am aware that this court is not a Court of Appeal but any court is entitled to look and rely on the provisions of the applicable laws to avoid giving a futile order, and I am doing just the same.
In view of the premises, I dismiss the application with costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 15th day of October, 2002.
K. H. RAWAL
JUDGE