[2020] KECA 265 (KLR)
The Court found that the failure to serve the ruling containing the conditional timelines for stay of execution was due to an inadvertent omission by the Court's staff. This omission prevented the applicant from complying with the conditions within the original timelines. To ensure justice and give effect to its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KECA 265 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Valentine Growers Limited; Respondent: Kiambaa Coffee Growers Co-operative; Respondent: Attorney General
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 121 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Order Correcting Accidental Slip or Omission; Post Ruling, Pre Appeal Hearing
- Outcome
- Rectification order granted; timelines for compliance with stay of execution conditions reset from date of rectification order; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- RN Nambuye, FI Koome, DK Musinga
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Rectification of Orders, Procedural Timelines
- 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
Valentine Growers Limited
Applicant
Kiambaa Coffee Growers Co-operative
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Order Correcting Accidental Slip or Omission; Post Ruling, Pre Appeal Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the failure to serve the ruling containing conditional timelines invalidated the applicant's ability to comply with the stay of execution conditions.
- 2 Whether the Court should rectify the timelines for compliance with the stay of execution orders due to an accidental slip or omission in service.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the failure to serve the ruling containing the conditional timelines for stay of execution was due to an inadvertent omission by the Court's staff. This omission prevented the applicant from complying with the conditions within the original timelines. To ensure justice and give effect to its original orders, the Court exercised its power under Rule 35(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules to rectify the timelines. The new timelines for depositing the decretal sum and filing the appeal would run from the date of the rectification order, not the original ruling date. The Court further noted the absence of objection from the respondents and determined that there would be no...
Court Disposition
Rectification order granted; timelines for compliance with stay of execution conditions reset from date of rectification order; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The entire decretal sum of KES 5,154,765.50 is to be deposited in an interest earning account in the joint names of counsel for the parties within 30 days of the date of this rectification order.
- The appeal is to be filed and served within sixty days of the date of this rectification order and processed for hearing expeditiously.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
43 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CORAM: NAMBUYE, KOOME & MUSINGA, JJ.A.)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2020
BETWEEN
VALENTINE GROWERS LIMITED................................................APPLICANT
AND
KIAMBAA COFFEE GROWERS CO-OPERATIVE...........1STRESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL..........................................................2NDRESPONDENT
(Being an application for stay of execution of the judgment and order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (L. Njuguna, J.) dated 7thMay 2020
in
Nairobi HCCC No. 981 of 2004
***********************
ORDER CORRECTING AN ERROR ARISING FROM ACCIDENTAL SLIP OR OMISSION AND TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE COURT’S ORDERS GRANTED IN THE RULING DELIVERED ON 22NDJULY 2020 WHOSE REASONS WERE GIVEN ON 25THSEPTEMBER 2020 PURSUANT TO RULE 35(1) OF THE RULES OF THE COURT
The matter herein was heard by this Bench on 22nd July 2020 giving rise to a ruling of the Court delivered on the same date of 22nd July 2020 granting orders as follows:
1. Stay of execution prayed for in terms of prayers 2 and 3 of the application is granted on the following conditions:
(a) The entire decretal sum of kshs.5,154,765. 50/= is deposited in an interest earning account in a reputable financial institution in the joint names of learned counsel for the respective parties within 30 days of today’s date.
2. The appeal to be filed and served within sixty days of today’s date and the same to be processed for hearing expeditiously.
3. Reasons for the ruling to be delivered on 6thNovember 2020.
4. Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the ruling on reasons.
5. In default of any of item 1 and 2 above, the orders of stay of execution granted herein shall lapse.
Reasons for the ruling were reserved for delivery on 6th November 2020
but they were nonetheless issued on 25th September 2020 following early preparation and approval by the Bench. Upon receipt of a copy of the reasons delivered on 25th September 2020, the firm of Kigano & Associates for the appellant/applicant via an email of the same date addressed to the Deputy Registrar of the Court raised issue of their non-compliance with the timelines set in the orders granted on 22nd July 2020 citing lack of service upon them of the orders of 22nd July 2020 and sought directions on the way forward considering that the conditional timelines within which to comply with the conditionalities in the said orders had lapsed long before service upon them of the reasons for the ruling was effected.
Upon inquiring from the Registry of the Court, it has transpired that although the orders issued by the Court on 22nd July 2020 were delivered, approved and signed on the same date of 22nd July 2020, a certified copy of the said ruling was never served on the respective parties due to inadvertence on the part of the secretary tasked to type the same and process its dispatch to the Registrar of the Court for onward transmission to the respective parties.
In the result and on the Court’s suo motu considering that there is no objection from the respondent since service upon them of the above mentioned reasons; and in the exercise of the Court’s mandate pursuant to Rule 35(1) of the Rules of the Court, the Court suo motu proceeds to make rectifications/corrections to item 1 and 2 in the ruling delivered on 22nd July 2020 with regard to timelines within which to comply with the conditionalities stated therein, in order to give effect to the orders granted therein as follows:
1. Stay of execution prayed for in terms of prayers 2 and 3 of the application is granted on the following conditions:
(a) The entire decretal sum of kshs.5,154,765. 50/= is deposited in an interest earning account in a reputable financial institution in the joint names of learned counsel for the respective parties within 30 days of the date of this rectification/correction order.
(b) The appeal to be filed and served within sixty days of the date of this rectification/correction order and the same to be processed for hearing expeditiously.
2. In default of any of item 1(a) and (b) above, the orders of stay of execution granted herein shall lapse.
There will be no orders as to costs for partial correction of the orders of the ruling dated 22nd July 2020.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 23rdday of October, 2020.
R. N. NAMBUYE
.....................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
M. KOOME
....................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
D. K. MUSINGA
....................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a truecopy of the original.
Signed
DEPUTY REGISTRAR