KENYA ROYAL MEDIA SERVICES LTD. vs KENYA TELEVISION NETWORK LTD. [1999] KECA 159 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out Royal Media Services' appeal because its notice of appeal was not served on all intended parties, ending the case on a procedural technicality.
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 notice of appeal filed on 26th May, 1995 and the appeal filed on 6th October, 1995 should be struck out on the ground that the notice of appeal was not served on all intended parties
Key legal issues
#Striking out of an appeal for failure to serve the notice of appeal on all intended parties
The appeal and notice of appeal were struck out, with the respondent's counsel properly conceding that the application should succeed.
The respondent's advocate, Dr. Kuria, conceded that the application under rule 80 should succeed because the notice of appeal was not served on all intended parties. The Court accepted the concession as proper and struck out both the notice of appeal and the appeal, awarding costs of the appeal and the application to the respondent. No contested reasoning was necessary given the concession.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal may be struck out under rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules where the notice of appeal was not served on all intended parties.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of appeal filed on 26th May, 1995 and the appeal filed on 6th October, 1995 are struck out
- 2.Costs of the appeal and of the application awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. No. 1058 of 1995
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application to strike out notice of appeal and appeal)
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.
That being so, the notice of appeal and the appeal abovementioned are struck out with costs of the appeal and this application.
Dr. Kuria for the respondent concedes very properly in our view that the application should succeed.
Issues in the judgment
#The respondent's name is printed in the cause title as 'KJENYA TELEVISION NETWORK LTD.', which appears to be a typographical error for 'Kenya Television Network Ltd.'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "KENYA ROYAL MEDIA SERVICES LTD. vs KENYA TELEVISION NETWORK LTD. [1999] KECA 159 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1999). Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1995. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1999/159/eng@1999-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.