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 AppealStruck OutCivil Appeal No. 96 of 2016

Rayleigh W. Wanyama v Lorna Mukhwana Wanyama & 3 others [2020] KECA 802 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
3 April 2020
2,044 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out an appeal filed without required leave, confirming courts cannot skip appeal-approval rules even by invoking constitutional justice values.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a Court of Appeal (Kisumu) decision arising from a High Court ruling at Bungoma (Mukunya, J.) that upheld an oral preliminary objection and struck out the appellant's appeal from a subordinate court ruling in HCCA No. 43 of 2012, on the basis that the appellant lacked capacity, having failed to appeal an earlier decision declining to enjoin him as a party. On second appeal, the appellant advanced 12 grounds, principally that the Judge struck out the appeal on an unfiled preliminary objection raising contested facts, contrary to the Mukisa Biscuits principle, and without hearing him. However, at the hearing counsel for the appellant conceded that the appeal was incompetent because it did not lie as of right and leave to appeal had neither been sought nor obtained from the High Court or the Court of Appeal. The court accordingly confined itself to the competence question. Applying Kenya Commercial Bank v Esipeya and Peter Nyaga Muvake v Joseph Mutunga, it held that leave is a prerequisite to the assumption of appellate jurisdiction and that without leave there is no valid notice of appeal and no properly invoked jurisdiction. Relying on Kakuta Maimai Hamisi and Mumo Matemu, it further held that Article 159(2)(d) cannot cure the failure to obtain leave, as compliance with procedure is not antithetical to Article 159. The appeal was struck out with no order as to costs. The judgment was delivered under rule 32(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules because Odek, JA passed on before delivery; Kiage, JA concurred.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the appeal was competent absent leave to appeal

Holding

The appeal was incompetent and was struck out because it did not lie as of right and leave was neither sought nor obtained from the High Court or the Court of Appeal, as counsel for the appellant conceded.

Reasoning

The impugned ruling arose from a preliminary objection and was not appealable as of right under Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court relied on its own precedents holding that leave is a prerequisite to the assumption of appellate jurisdiction and that without leave there can be no valid Notice of Appeal, so jurisdiction was never properly invoked.

p. 2
02

Whether Article 159 of the Constitution cures the failure to obtain leave

Holding

Article 159(2)(d) is not a panacea that cures procedural defaults such as the failure to obtain leave; the right of appeal goes to jurisdiction and cannot be ignored as a mere technicality.

Reasoning

Relying on Kakuta Maimai Hamisi v Peris Pesi Tobiko and Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance, the court held that the right of appeal is so fundamental that its absence by statutory donation cannot be treated as a technicality, and that procedure is a handmaiden of just determination of cases rather than antithetical to Article 159.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an order is appealable only with leave, the procurement of leave is a prerequisite to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Court of Appeal and to the validity of the Notice of Appeal.
  • Without a valid Notice of Appeal, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is not properly invoked; a notice of appeal filed without the requisite leave is a nullity.
  • Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution cannot be used to cure the absence of a statutory right of appeal or the failure to obtain leave; compliance with procedure is not antithetical to Article 159.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is struck out with no order as to costs
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Bungoma
HCCA No. 43 of 2012
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Cap 9); the appeal was from a ruling striking out an appeal from a subordinate court's ruling.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rayleigh W. Wanyama v Lorna Mukhwana Wanyama & 3 others [2020] KECA 802 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Appeal No. 96 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2020/802/eng@2020-04-03

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