[2001] KECA 334 (KLR)

[2001] KECA 334 (KLR)

The court found that the application was fatally defective due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically the failure to number the record as prescribed and the lack of a Commissioner of Oaths seal on the annextures to the supporting affidavit. These defects contravened Rule 13(5) of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KECA 334 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Zecharia Ogamba Omarijoseph Obamba Atenga; Respondent: Otundo Mochache alias Otundu Nyaega
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Application 295 of ??
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
application struck out as defective
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Court of Appeal Rules, Procedural Defects
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Court of Appeal Rules Procedural Defects

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Zecharia Ogamba Omarijoseph Obamba Atenga

Applicant

Otundo Mochache alias Otundu Nyaega

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time is competent in light of procedural defects.
  2. 2 Whether failure to comply with Rule 13(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules and Rule 9 of the Statutory Declarations Act renders the application defective.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was fatally defective due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically the failure to number the record as prescribed and the lack of a Commissioner of Oaths seal on the annextures to the supporting affidavit. These defects contravened Rule 13(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules and Rule 9 of the Rules made under section 6 of the Statutory Declarations Act. As a result, the application could not be entertained and was struck out with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application struck out as defective

Orders

  • The application is struck out with costs to the respondent assessed at 2,000/=