[1998] KECA 264 (KLR)
The Court held that D.T. Dobie & Co. (K) Ltd, as a named defendant, was a party directly affected by the appeal within the meaning of rule 76(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The appellant's failure to serve the Notice of Appeal on D.T. Dobie was a fatal procedural defect. The Court rejected the appellant's argument...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] KECA 264 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Tree Shade Motors Limited; Respondent: Joseph Rading Wasambo; Defendant: D.T. Dobie & Co. (K) Ltd
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 186 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal and Appeal
- Outcome
- application granted; notice of appeal and appeal struck out
- Judges
- RO Kwach, AB Shah
- Legal Topics
- Service of Notice, Default Judgment, Appeal Procedure, Affected Parties
- 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
Tree Shade Motors Limited
Appellant
Joseph Rading Wasambo
Respondent
D.T. Dobie & Co. (K) Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal and Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether failure to serve the Notice of Appeal on D.T. Dobie & Co. (K) Ltd, a party directly affected by the appeal, warranted striking out the Notice of Appeal and the appeal.
- 2 Whether D.T. Dobie & Co. (K) Ltd was a party directly affected by the appeal within the meaning of rule 76(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
- 3 Whether the appellant could seek dispensation from service at the appellate stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that D.T. Dobie & Co. (K) Ltd, as a named defendant, was a party directly affected by the appeal within the meaning of rule 76(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The appellant's failure to serve the Notice of Appeal on D.T. Dobie was a fatal procedural defect. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that non-participation in the application to set aside the default judgment exempted D.T. Dobie from being directly affected. The Court further held that the appellant could not seek dispensation from service at this late stage, as the rules require such applications to be made within a specified time, and granting dispensation now would unjustly deprive the respondent of the...
Court Disposition
application granted; notice of appeal and appeal struck out
Orders
- The Notice of Appeal dated 4th July, 1995 is struck out.
- The appeal is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Kwach, Shah & Bosire, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL (APPLICATION) NO. 186 OF 1997
BETWEEN
TREE SHADE MOTORS LIMITED................................APPELLANT
AND
JOSEPH RADING WASAMBO....................................RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the ruling and order of the High Court of Kenya
at Nairobi (Ole Keiwua, J.) dated 30th June, 1995 in
H.C.C.C. NO. 3764 OF 1994)
***********************
RULING OF THE COURT:
This is an application brought under rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules (the Rules) by Joseph Wasambo (the respondent) to strike out the Notice of Appeal dated 4th July, 1995 and the appeal subsequently filed by Tree Shade Motors Ltd (the appellant), on the ground that the appellant did not serve the Notice of Appeal on D.T. Dobie & Co. (K) Ltd (D.T. Dobie) a party directly affected by the appeal within the meaning of rule 76(1) of the Rules.
The respondent sued the appellant and D.T. Dobie in the superior court seeking the return of his motor vehicle Nissan Sentra KXT 657 which he had taken to D.T. Dobie on 20th January, 1992 to be repaired. D.T. Dobie did not repair the vehicle but sold it to the appellant to recover what they called "work done on the motor vehicle and storage charges."
D.T. Dobie filed a defence to the suit but the appellant did not with the result that the respondent obtained a default judgment against it. The appellant then applied to set aside the default judgment but the application was dismissed as the Judge was satisfied that the judgment had been regularly obtained. It is against that decision that the appellant has now appealed to this Court.
The appellant's Advocates did not serve the Notice of Appeal on D.T. dobie and this is conceded by Mr. Waweru Gatonye, for the appellant but he submits that D.T. Dobie was not a party directly affected because it did not take part in the proceedings that is to say, the application to set aside the default judgment. But this submission cannot be correct because D.T. Dobie is a named defendant and on the authorities of this Court it is a party directly affected by the appeal notwithstanding that it did not take part in the application to set aside the default judgment. If the appellant felt that D.T. dobie was not a party directly affected by the appeal, its Advocates should have taken advantage of the proviso to rule 76(1) of the Rules to dispense with service. This was not done. Mr. Gatonye submits that we can grant the dispensation at this stage but as the rule specifies the time within which the application has to be made, it would be unjust to the respondent at this stage because it would deprive the respondent of its right under rule 54 to challenge the decision of the single Judge of this Court who would ordinarily deal with such an application.
For these reasons, we grant the application and strike out the Notice of Appeal dated 4th July, 1995 and also this appeal. The respondent will have the costs of the motion and the appeal.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 6th day of February, 1998.
R.O. KWACH
.............
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.B. SHAH
.................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
S.E.O. BOSIRE
................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true
copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR