Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appli NAI 39 of 2005· [2005] KECA 283 (KLR)

Peter Kinyua Muchendu v Getrude Chao Waita [2005] KECA 283 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
27 July 2005
ROR. S. C. OmoloPhilip Kiptoo TunoiP. K. TunoiEGE. M. Githinji
311 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 that time certified by a court registrar for preparing proceedings doesn't count against you when filing an appeal record.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court of Appeal at Mombasa (Omolo, Tunoi and Githinji, JJ.A.) delivered a short ruling dismissing an application by Peter Kinyua Muchendu to strike out a notice of appeal lodged by Getrude Chao Waita against a ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Sergon, J.) dated 27th June 2003 in H.C.C.C. No. 72 of 2003. The applicant contended that the notice of appeal was out of time, but the court noted that under the proviso to rule 81(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, any period certified by the registrar of the superior court as necessary for the preparation and delivery of proceedings is excluded when computing the time for filing the record of appeal. Here, the Deputy Registrar certified that he required the period from 1st July 2003 to 8th July 2005 to prepare and deliver the proceedings, and that the respondent collected them on 8th July 2005. Counsel for the applicant alleged, without evidence, that the certificate had been issued to defeat the motion. The court held there was no acceptable evidence to justify so serious a conclusion and that the certificate stood. It accordingly dismissed the motion with costs to the respondent. This is a single unanimous judgment of the court; no judge wrote separately. The ruling binds subordinate courts on the evidential threshold required to impugn a registrar's certified period.

Key legal issues

#
01

Effect of a registrar's certified period on computation of time for filing the record of appeal

Holding

The certified period is excluded in computing the time to file the record of appeal; an allegation that the certificate was issued to defeat a motion must be supported by acceptable evidence

Reasoning

Under the proviso to rule 81(1), periods certified by the registrar as necessary for preparing and delivering proceedings are excluded from the computation of time for filing the record of appeal. The Deputy Registrar certified the period 1st July 2003 to 8th July 2005 and that the respondent collected the proceedings on 8th July 2005. Counsel's suggestion that the certificate was contrived to defeat the motion was a serious allegation unsupported by any acceptable evidence, so the certificate stood and the motion failed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A registrar's certificate of the period required for preparation and delivery of proceedings binds the court under the proviso to rule 81(1), and will only be disregarded upon acceptable evidence that the certificate is false

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion to strike out the notice of appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 81(1) proviso
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
H.C.C.C. No. 72 of 2003
Jurisdiction invoked
Court of Appeal Rules, rule 81(1) proviso (application to strike out notice of appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Peter Kinyua Muchendu v Getrude Chao Waita [2005] KECA 283 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2005). Civil Appli NAI 39 of 2005. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2005/283/eng@2005-07-27

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