Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealStruck OutCivil Application No. Nai. 106 of 1987

Madiha Mahendra Adalja v Mahendra Krishnalal Adalja [1988] KECA 80 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
21 October 1988
JNJ.O. NyarangiFAF.K. ApalooJGJ.E. Gicheru
137 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out an application to overturn a divorce decree because it was procedurally incompetent, without ever deciding its merits.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a brief order of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi delivered on 21st October, 1988 by a bench comprising Nyarangi, Apaloo JJ.A. and Gicheru, AG. J.A. The applicant, Madiha Mahendra Adalja, moved the Court by Notice of Motion filed on 29th June, 1987 seeking to set aside the decree of divorce issued in an intended appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (O'Conner, J.) dated 29th September, 1986 in H.C.C.C. No. 73 of 1985. The court did not engage with the substance of the application. Without any stated reasons in the certified copy, the bench held the Notice of Motion to be incompetent and struck it out. It made no order as to costs, so each party bears its own costs of the application. The decision below was not reviewed on the merits; the order of the High Court remains undisturbed by this disposition, which is purely procedural. As the judgment consists only of the disposition, the binding takeaway for practitioners is the court's willingness to strike out an application in the Court of Appeal on competency grounds without adjudicating its merits. No authorities or statutory provisions are cited in the copy provided, and the judgment is a single order of the whole court with no separate opinions.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Notice of Motion filed on 29th June, 1987 was competent before the Court

Key legal issues

#
01

Competency of the Notice of Motion

Holding

The Notice of Motion was struck out as incompetent

Reasoning

The court, sitting as a full bench of three appellate judges, disposed of the application without hearing it on the merits because the Notice of Motion filed on 29th June, 1987 did not meet the requirements of competency in the Court of Appeal. The application seeking to set aside the decree of divorce in an intended appeal was therefore not adjudicated substantively.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A Notice of Motion filed in the Court of Appeal that does not comply with the requirements for competency will be struck out

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion filed on 29th June, 1987 is struck out being incompetent
  2. 2.No order as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

JN
majority
FA
majority
JG
majority
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C.C.C. No. 73 of 1985
Jurisdiction invoked
Intended appeal from the High Court of Kenya; notice of motion filed in the Court of Appeal under its appellate jurisdiction

Relief refused

#

Setting aside the decree of divorce in an intended appeal from the High Court

The Notice of Motion was incompetent

p. 1

Costs

No order as to costs.

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

The Notice of Motion which was filed in this Court on 29th June, 1987 is struck out being incompetent.
p. 1Final orders - striking out of incompetent application
No order as to costs.
p. 1Costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment contains only the final order; no reasons or analysis supporting the striking out are included in the certified copy

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Madiha Mahendra Adalja v Mahendra Krishnalal Adalja [1988] KECA 80 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1988). Civil Application No. Nai. 106 of 1987. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1988/80/eng@1988-10-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.