[2003] KECA 107 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent took all necessary steps within the prescribed time to obtain the proceedings and ruling. The delay in posting the letter notifying the availability of the documents was due to an error in the address and was not attributable to the respondent or its advocates. The certificate of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] KECA 107 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Wilfred Odhiambo Musingo; Respondent: Habo Agencies Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 254 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- AB Shah, E Owuor
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Timelines, Certificate of Delay, Service of Process, Striking Out Notice
- 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
Wilfred Odhiambo Musingo
Applicant
Habo Agencies Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out for failure to lodge the appeal within the time stipulated by Rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
- 2 Whether the delay in posting the letter notifying availability of proceedings was attributable to the respondent or its advocates.
- 3 Whether the certificate of delay issued by the Deputy Registrar was valid and accurate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent took all necessary steps within the prescribed time to obtain the proceedings and ruling. The delay in posting the letter notifying the availability of the documents was due to an error in the address and was not attributable to the respondent or its advocates. The certificate of delay issued by the Deputy Registrar was found to be valid and there was no evidence to suggest impropriety or inaccuracy. Consequently, the appeal was filed within the time allowed by Rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules, and there was no basis to strike out the notice of appeal.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application to strike out the notice of appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CORAM: OMOLO, SHAH & OWUOR, JJ.A
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 254 OF 2002
BETWEEN
WILFRED ODHIAMBO MUSINGO............................APPLICANT
AND
HABO AGENCIES LIMITED.................................RESPONDENT
(An application to strike out the notice of appeal from the Ruling of High Court
of Kenya at Nairobi (Khamoni, J) delivered on 15th August, 2001
in
H.C.C.C. NO. 2047 OF 2000)
******************
RULING OF THE COURT
The applicant, Wilfred Odhiambo Musingo, seeks an order to strike out a notice of appeal lodged by the respondent, Habo Agencies Limited, on the grounds that the respondent has failed to take any steps to lodge the appeal within the time stipulated in rule 81 of the Rules of this Court. The respondent’s defence filed in the superior court was struck out as the same was not served upon the applicant’s advocates within seven days as mandated in Order VIII rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. This is what we were told by both counsel before us. The defence was struck out on 15th August, 2001.
The notice of appeal sought to be struck out was lodged in the superior court on 22nd day of August, 2001. That was within the stipulated time. Copies of proceedings and ruling were applied for on 16th August, 2001. That was also within time. The advocates on record for the respondent were and still are Messrs. Asige Keverenge & Anyanzwa. By a letter dated 16th May, 2002 the superior court notified them that the copies of proceedings and ruling were available for collection upon payment of Shs.990/=. Unfortunately the said letter is addressed as follows:
“Asige Keverenge & Anyanzwa,
Advocates,
P.O. Box 86870,
NAIROBI”
These advocates have no offices in Nairobi and Post Office Box Number 86870, is a Mombasa number. The address seems to have caused problems. The letter was not posted to the advocates until 4th September, 2002 as deponed to by Mr. Asige and as confirmed by the Deputy Registrar of the superior court in the Certificate of Delay dated 25th September, 2002.
Mr. Tiego who appeared for the applicant took issue with the statement under oath by Mr. Asige to the effect that the said letter was not posted until 4th September, 2002. He urged that it was unbelievable that a letter dated 16th May, 2002 could not be posted until 4th September, 2002. He suggested that the note made by Mr. Kenyonzo who appeared for the respondent on behalf of Mr. Asige as well as notes made by Mr. Keyonzo’s clerk, Mr. Mulindi, in respect of visits and inquires made at the court registry, were not genuine. He also urged that the Certificate of Delay issued by the Deputy Registrar of the superior court was not correct and that therefore the record of appeal was not lodged within the time frame as provided in Rule 81 of the Rules of this Court.
As we see it, the letter of 16th May, 2002 was, for one reason or another, not posted until 4th September, 2002 and we cannot lay the blame therefor at the door of the respondent’s advocates. According to both counsel the appeal itself was filed on 1st November, 2002. That is within 60 days of the date when the copies of the proceedings and ruling were delivered.
Despite Mr. Tiego’s spirited urgings that the appeal was lodged out of time we cannot see it that way. As we have already pointed out, the late posting of the letter in question was not because of any blame on the part of the advocates for the respondent. We were told that we had powers to look behind the correctness of a certificate of delay - See the case of Kanyago & 2 others vs. Mereka (Civil Appeal No. 94 of 2001) (unreported). We have those powers but in this instance we cannot detect any flaw in the certificate of delay to warrant our saying that it was incorrect.
This application is dismissed with costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 4 th day of April, 2003.
R.S.C. OMOLO
............................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.B. SHAH
............................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
E. OWUOR
.........................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR