ATTORNEY GENERAL vs KAMLESH MANSUKHLAL DAMJI PATTNI,BERNARD KALOVE & LIONEL JOHN SMITH [2000] KECA 63 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that court papers can be served on a party living abroad using the same process Kenyan superior courts apply.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substituted/foreign service of appellate process on a respondent residing outside Kenya
The court ordered service of the notice of motion and hearing notice on the 3rd Respondent in Dubai by means of the comparable process applicable in the superior court of Kenya, pursuant to Rule 17.
Gicheru JA had earlier adjourned the extension-of-time application so that the absent 3rd Respondent could be served in compliance with Rule 49. That direction implied the need for service abroad, and Rule 17 permits service by the comparable superior-court process. The court adopted counsel's request.
Legal principles established
#- Where an appellate court directs that a party abroad be served with process, service may be effected through the comparable process applicable in the superior court of Kenya under Rule 17 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted for the 3rd Respondent, who resides outside the country in Dubai, to be served with the notice of motion and hearing notice by means of the comparable process that applies in such a case in the superior court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 17 of the Court of Appeal Rules (service of process), in aid of an appeal under the Court of Appeal Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "ATTORNEY GENERAL vs KAMLESH MANSUKHLAL DAMJI PATTNI,BERNARD KALOVE & LIONEL JOHN SMITH [2000] KECA 63 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2000). Unknown. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/63/eng@2000-07-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.