Patani v Crown Match Company Ltd & 2 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 174 of 2004) [2006] KECA 171 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that joint notices of appeal are valid and time spent waiting for court proceedings doesn't count against appeal deadlines.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a joint notice of appeal by two parties complies with rule 74(1) and 79(1)
A joint notice of appeal is proper and permissible; rule 79(1) contemplates multiple notices from the same decision and does not prohibit a joint notice.
Counsel for the applicant argued each party ought to file its own notice of appeal. The court held this submission had no basis, because rule 79(1) expressly deals with situations where two or more parties give notice of appeal from the same decision, deeming subsequent notices to be notices of address for service. Nothing in the Rules prohibits a joint notice where appropriate. Counsel ultimately conceded this limb was without merit.
Computation of the 60-day period for lodging an appeal under rule 81(1) and the effect of a certificate of delay
Time certified by the registrar as required for preparation and delivery of copies of proceedings is excluded under the proviso to rule 81(1); the certificate of delay (12th May 2003 to 11th June 2004) was accepted, making the appeal filed on 10th August 2004 timely.
The applicant contended the appeal was lodged out of time because the letter stating proceedings were ready was dated 29th April 2004. The court relied on the certificate of delay issued by the Deputy Registrar, which certified 396 days as taken by the court to prepare and supply certified copies. There being no prescribed form for a certificate of delay, and no evidence showing what was wrong with it, the certificate stood and the certified time was excluded from the computation.
Legal principles established
#- Two or more parties appealing from the same decision may properly file a joint notice of appeal; rule 79(1) deems subsequent notices notices of address for service.
- Under the proviso to rule 81(1), the time certified by the registrar of the superior court as required for preparation and delivery of copies of proceedings is excluded in computing the time within which an appeal must be instituted.
- A certificate of delay issued by the Deputy Registrar of the superior court is conclusive in the absence of evidence demonstrating what is wrong with it; a party cannot simply declare it wrong.
Court orders
#- 1.The application to strike out the notice of appeal lodged on 12th May 2003 and the appeal lodged on 10th August 2004 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondents
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Milimani Commercial Court
- H.C.C.C. No. 1663 of 2001
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Court of Appeal Rules (Rules 42(1), 52(2)(c), 74(1), 79(1), 80 and 81(1)); application to strike out notice of appeal and appeal in an appeal from the High Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Paul Wanyonyi v Silver Star Parcels Services Limited (Civil Appeal (Application) 250 of 2009) (Civ) [2010] KECA 316 (KLR)[2010] KECA 316 (KLR)30 Apr 2010
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Patani v Crown Match Company Ltd & 2 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 174 of 2004) [2006] KECA 171 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2006). Civil Appeal (Appli) 174 of 2004. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2006/171/eng@2006-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.