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 AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. 321 of 2000

Berco Auto Spares Ltd v Hannah Wanjiru Wanganga [2001] KECA 30 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
27 July 2001
697 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to strike out an appeal, holding that a service rubber-stamp proved delivery and only pleadings existing before the ruling need appear in the record.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
In this interlocutory ruling, a three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Omolo, Shah and O'Kubasu, JJA) dismissed an application by Berco Auto Spares Ltd, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 321 of 2000, seeking to strike out its own appeal on two grounds. First, the applicant's advocates contended that the notice of appeal lodged on 2nd November 2000 was never served on them within the seven days required by rule 76(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which would render the appeal incompetent. The respondent's process server swore that he served the notice on 8th November 2000, and the exhibited copy bore a rubber-stamp evidencing service on that date. The applicant alleged, only indirectly, that the stamp was forged and relied on a minor difference in the layout of the second page between copies, plus counsel's statement from the bar that no clerk received the document. The court held this insufficient to displace the evidence of service and rejected the forgery suggestion. Secondly, the applicant argued that an amended plaint lodged on 29th November 2000 was missing from the record of appeal contrary to rule 85(1)(c). The court held that only pleadings in existence before the ruling appealed against (delivered by Angawa, J on 26th October 2000 in H.C.C.C. No. 1676 of 2000) need be included; the amended plaint was not before the superior court when the injunction application was argued. Both grounds failed and the application was dismissed with costs. The ruling does not disturb the High Court's decision, which remains for determination in the substantive appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Service of the notice of appeal under rule 76(1)

Holding

The ground of non-service failed; the court was not satisfied that service was not effected, and the suggestion that the service rubber-stamp was forged was not established.

Reasoning

The respondent's process server swore an affidavit that he served the notice of appeal on the applicant's advocates' office on 8th November 2000, and the exhibited copy bore a rubber-stamp evidencing service on that date. The applicant's objection rested on a minor typographical difference in the layout of the second page between two copies, explained as a copying artefact, and on counsel's statement from the bar that no clerk received the copy, which the court held was not enough to displace the documentary evidence of service.

p. 2
02

Contents of the record of appeal under rule 85(1)(c)

Holding

The omission of the amended plaint did not render the record defective because the amended plaint was lodged after the ruling appealed against and was not before the superior court when the application for injunction was argued.

Reasoning

Rule 85(1)(c) requires pleadings to be included in the record of appeal, but the obligation extends only to pleadings that existed before the date of the decision appealed against. An amended plaint lodged on 29th November 2000, after the ruling of 26th October 2000, was not a primary document and its absence could not ground striking out the appeal.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A notice of appeal must be served on the respondent within seven days of lodgement under rule 76(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, but a bare assertion of non-service, unsupported by evidence, will not render an appeal incompetent where there is evidence, such as a service rubber-stamp, indicating service.
  • Rule 85(1)(c) requires pleadings to be included in the record of appeal, but only pleadings in existence before the date of the ruling appealed against; pleadings lodged after the decision under appeal need not be included.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant's application to strike out Civil Appeal No. 321 of 2000 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C.C.C. No. 1676 of 2000
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under the Constitution and the Court of Appeal Rules (rule 76(1) and rule 85(1)(c) invoked); the application was brought in the pending appeal, Civil Appeal No. 321 of 2000

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Berco Auto Spares Ltd v Hannah Wanjiru Wanganga [2001] KECA 30 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Civil Appeal No. 321 of 2000. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/30/eng@2001-07-27

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