[2010] KECA 64 (KLR)

[2010] KECA 64 (KLR)

The Court held that the order of 11th November, 2009 was not complete until sentences were imposed on 16th December, 2009, making it appropriate for the respondents to file a single notice of appeal after the final order. The Court found it artificial to require separate notices for the two orders, as they were part...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KECA 64 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Trans-Nzoia Investment Company Limited; Respondent: Joseph Wanambisi; Respondent: Alfred Wanambisi; Respondent: Wekesa Waminila; Respondent: Sammy Wanjala; Respondent: Ibrahim Ongaro
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal (Application) 79 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeals Process, Notice of Appeal, Procedural Irregularities
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeals Process Notice of Appeal Procedural Irregularities

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trans-Nzoia Investment Company Limited

Applicant

Joseph Wanambisi

Respondent

Alfred Wanambisi

Respondent

Wekesa Waminila

Respondent

Sammy Wanjala

Respondent

Ibrahim Ongaro

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the notice of appeal and record of appeal should be struck out for failure to file separate notices for two related orders.
  2. 2 Whether filing a single notice of appeal against both orders constituted a curable procedural irregularity.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the order of 11th November, 2009 was not complete until sentences were imposed on 16th December, 2009, making it appropriate for the respondents to file a single notice of appeal after the final order. The Court found it artificial to require separate notices for the two orders, as they were part of a single continuum of proceedings. Even if there was a procedural irregularity in filing a single notice, such irregularity was curable under sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, which introduced the overriding objective of litigation. Striking out the record of appeal would be contrary to these provisions, as it would unnecessarily prolong litigation and...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's motion dated 11th May, 2010 is dismissed.
  • The costs of the dismissed motion shall be to the respondents in any event.