Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealStruck OutCivil Appeal No. 29 of 1998· [1999] KECA 109 (KLR)

PAUL MUTURI MUNDUI) RUCHU GAITHO ) vs WANJIRA KIENYERE GICHANGI) JOSEPH GICHANGI KIENYERE) KENNETH KANYIRA KIENYERE) LYDIA WANJIKU KIENYERE )ANNA WANJIKU KIENYERE) JOYCE WANGARE KIENYERE )JOSEPHAT GATHUA KIENYERE) PAUL GITAHI KIENYERE) [1999] KECA 109 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
24 February 1999
240 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 confirmed you cannot withdraw an appeal filed without a certified copy of the decree; such a defective appeal is struck out with costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This short Court of Appeal decision at Nakuru (Gicheru, Kwach and Shah, JJ.A.) concerns the fate of Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1998, an appeal by Paul Muturi Mundui and Ruchu Gaitho against the judgment and decree of the High Court at Nakuru (Tunoi, J) of 6 July 1995 in H.C.C.C. No. 5 of 1988. Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Konosi, applied to withdraw the appeal, himself acknowledging that the record of appeal was defective because it did not contain a certified copy of the decree as required by rule 85(1)(h) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The court held that this defect rendered the appeal incompetent, and that an incompetent appeal is incapable of withdrawal - the appellants could not simply walk away from it. The court further noted that although the appeal had been lodged more than a year earlier, no service had been effected on the respondents, denying them the opportunity to file an application under rule 80 to strike out the appeal. In the circumstances the court struck out the appeal with costs to the respondents. The decision is a short procedural ruling on appeal competence, withdrawal and service; no substantive issues from the underlying land dispute were determined, and the High Court judgment was neither affirmed nor reversed on the merits.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a defective appeal can be withdrawn by the appellant

Holding

No. An appeal whose record lacks a certified copy of the decree as required by rule 85(1)(h) is incompetent, and an incompetent appeal is incapable of withdrawal; the court strikes it out.

Reasoning

The appellants' counsel sought to withdraw the appeal because the record was defective. The court held that the defect went to competence: without a certified copy of the decree the appeal was not properly before the court at all. An incompetent appeal cannot be withdrawn as a matter of right; the court's jurisdiction is to strike it out, which it did with costs to the respondents.

p. 2
02

Consequences of failure to serve the record of appeal on the respondents

Holding

Where an appeal has been lodged but not served for over a year, the respondents are denied the opportunity to move under rule 80 to strike it out, and the court will strike out the appeal with costs.

Reasoning

The appeal had been lodged more than a year earlier without service on the respondents. This deprived them of the chance to file their own application under rule 80. The court treated the inordinate non-service as justifying striking out the appeal on its own motion, with costs to the respondents, rather than allowing the appellants to control the fate of the incompetent appeal by withdrawal.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal whose record does not contain a certified copy of the decree as required by rule 85(1)(h) of the Court of Appeal Rules is incompetent and cannot be withdrawn; it must be struck out.
  • Failure to serve the record of appeal on respondents within a reasonable time denies them the opportunity to apply under rule 80 to strike out the appeal and justifies the court striking out the appeal on its own motion with costs.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal struck out with costs to the respondents
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
H.C.C.C. No. 5 of 1988
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under the Constitution and the Court of Appeal Rules; the appeal was struck out as incompetent rather than heard on the merits

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "PAUL MUTURI MUNDUI) RUCHU GAITHO ) vs WANJIRA KIENYERE GICHANGI) JOSEPH GICHANGI KIENYERE) KENNETH KANYIRA KIENYERE) LYDIA WANJIKU KIENYERE )ANNA WANJIKU KIENYERE) JOYCE WANGARE KIENYERE )JOSEPHAT GATHUA KIENYERE) PAUL GITAHI KIENYERE) [1999] KECA 109 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1999). Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1998. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1999/109/eng@1999-02-24

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