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 AppealPartially AllowedNotice of motion dated December 14, 2021 (Civil Application)· [2023] KECA 886 (KLR)

Muritu v Kigwe Limited & 3 others (Civil Application E466 of 2021) [2023] KECA 886 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
24 July 2023
1,173 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a widow to fix a date error in her appeal papers, but ruled a single judge cannot grant a stay of proceedings.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered by G.W Ngenye-Macharia, JA, sitting as a single judge on July 24, 2023, on a notice of motion dated December 14, 2021 brought under rules 5(2)(b), 35, 44 and 77 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010. The applicant, the widow and personal representative of the estate of John Muritu Kigwe, an interested party in a suit before the Environment and Land Court, sought a stay of further proceedings and execution of the judgment and decree of L. Komingoi delivered July 22, 2021, extension of time for late service of an amended notice of appeal and the letter bespeaking proceedings, and leave to amend the notice of appeal to correct an erroneous date of judgment (August 22, 2021 instead of July 22, 2021). The single judge held that he lacked jurisdiction, sitting as a single judge, to determine a stay of proceedings under rule 5(2)(b), and confined himself to the other prayers. Applying the CORD decision, he granted leave to amend the notice of appeal, holding that careless errors causing no prejudice are correctable and that the objective of the rules and sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act is to facilitate just and speedy disposal of cases without undue regard to technicalities. Finding the applicant not indolent, he extended time for filing the amended notice of appeal to five days and directed service within seven days thereafter. Costs were made costs in the intended appeal. The stay limb was not determined for want of jurisdiction.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of a single judge over rule 5(2)(b) applications

Holding

A single judge cannot grant a stay of proceedings or execution under rule 5(2)(b); that power lies with the full Court.

Reasoning

The applicant had sought a stay of further proceedings and execution of the ELC judgment under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010. The judge deduced that the rules confine determination of such applications to the full Court. Sitting as a single judge, he held he lacked jurisdiction over that limb and confined himself to the limbs over which he had jurisdiction.

p. 2
02

Amendment of the notice of appeal to correct an erroneous date

Holding

Leave to amend the notice of appeal was granted because the error was careless, not deliberate, and caused no prejudice.

Reasoning

The notice of appeal erroneously referred to the judgment as dated August 22, 2021 instead of July 22, 2021. Following the CORD decision, the court held that careless errors which occasion no prejudice are correctable, even under the court's inherent powers, and that the objective of the rules and sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act is to facilitate just and speedy disposal of cases without undue regard to technicalities.

p. 2
03

Extension of time for late service of the notice of appeal and letter bespeaking proceedings

Holding

Time for filing the amended notice of appeal was extended (five days) and service directed within seven days thereafter; the applicant was found not to have been indolent.

Reasoning

The notice of appeal and the letter requesting proceedings, though dated July 2021, were only served on November 23, 2021 - about four months late. The court acknowledged this affected computation of time to institute the appeal, but found the applicant had acted promptly upon learning of the error and was eager to have the appeal heard, so extension was warranted in the interest of access to justice and without prejudice to any party.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A single judge of the Court of Appeal cannot determine an application for stay of proceedings or execution under rule 5(2)(b); such jurisdiction vests only in the full Court.
  • The power to amend a document is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously and upon reason, not arbitrarily.
  • Careless errors in a notice of appeal that occasion no prejudice to the other side are correctable by the Court of Appeal, even under its inherent powers, in furtherance of the just and expeditious disposal of cases.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the applicant to amend the notice of appeal
  2. 2.Time for the applicant to file and serve the amended notice of appeal extended; to be filed within five (5) days of the ruling
  3. 3.The applicant to serve both the amended notice of appeal and the letter requesting certified proceedings upon the respondent within seven (7) days thereafter
  4. 4.Costs of the application to be in the intended appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 5(2)(b)
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 35
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 44
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 77
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 4
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2022rule 46
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 79(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 84
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsections 3A and 3B

Cases cited (2)

  • Aviation Cargo Support Limited v St. Mark Freight Services Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Attorney General & another v Coalition for Reform and Democracy (CORD) & 7 others
    [2015] eKLR
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court (ELC)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 5(2)(b), 35, 44 and 77 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010; rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules; sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muritu v Kigwe Limited & 3 others (Civil Application E466 of 2021) [2023] KECA 886 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Notice of motion dated December 14, 2021 (Civil Application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/886/eng@2023-07-24

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