AUGUSTINE ODUODO AMANGA & ANOTHER vs PETER OKOLA OCHIENG' [1998] KECA 202 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out an appeal filed late, but refused the winning party their legal costs of the application.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the record of appeal, filed out of time, should be struck out on the respondent's application
Key legal issues
#Whether an appeal whose record was filed out of time should be struck out
The appeal was struck out because the record of appeal was filed out of time, but the court declined costs of the application.
The judgment appealed from was delivered on 30th July 1996. The appellants collected certified copies of the proceedings and judgment on 17th October 1996, yet the record of appeal was not filed until 20th December 1996, which was out of time. The respondent applied to strike out the appeal. The court found the delay established and struck out the appeal, but in its discretion declined to award the respondent the costs of the application.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal filed out of time (where the record of appeal is not filed within the prescribed period after obtaining certified copies of proceedings and judgment) is liable to be struck out on application.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal be struck out
- 2.The applicant's costs of the application were declined (no costs awarded)
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
- H.C.C.C. No. 138 of 1995
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over the High Court (the ruling does not cite a specific constitutional or statutory provision)
Relief refused
#Costs of the striking-out application sought by the respondent
The court declined to award the applicant costs despite succeeding in striking out the appeal
Costs
No costs awarded - the court declined to award the applicant (respondent) costs of the application; each party effectively bearing their own costs of the application.
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.
We therefore order that the appeal be struck out but decline to award the applicant costs of the applilication.
Certified copies of the proceedings and judgment were paid for and collected on 17th October, 1996, but the record of appeal was not filed till 20th December, 1996. This was out of time.
Issues in the judgment
#The coram lists Chesoni as Chief Justice ('CHESONI, C.J.') but the signature block describes him as 'JUDGE OF APPEAL', an internal inconsistency in the judgment.
The judgment contains typographical errors ('applilication' for 'application'; 'appellant' where 'appellants' is meant).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "AUGUSTINE ODUODO AMANGA & ANOTHER vs PETER OKOLA OCHIENG' [1998] KECA 202 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1998). Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1996. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1998/202/eng@1998-03-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.