Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCStruck OutNot stated in the judgment· [2021] KEELRC 981 (KLR)

Ruiru Feeds Limited v Samuel Njuguna Mbugua [2021] KEELRC 981 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
20 September 2021
NMNzioki Wa Makau
440 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court struck out an appeal because the appellant couldn't prove he served the other side with his request for court proceedings.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a notice of motion dated 14th April 2021 seeking dismissal of an appeal for inordinate delay in filing the record of appeal. The underlying matter was an appeal by Harish Patel against a decision of the Chief Magistrate's Court at Ruiru ordering him to pay Samuel Njuguna Mbugua terminal dues of Kshs. 324,170.50 plus interest. The memorandum of appeal was filed on 23rd October 2019, but no record of appeal had been filed since. The Appellant, through the replying affidavit of Harish Patel, blamed the delay on the lower court's failure to supply certified typed proceedings and judgment, producing two letters bespeaking the proceedings. Nzioki Wa Makau J held that although the law allows exclusion of the period taken by the registry to prepare and supply proceedings when computing time for filing a record of appeal, an appellant must prove that a written request for proceedings was made to the deputy registrar and that a copy was served on the respondent. Neither of the Appellant's two letters was copied to the Respondent, so the statutory safeguard was not satisfied. The court found a material departure from the law in presenting the appeal, rendering it moot, struck out the appeal, and awarded costs to the Respondent. The ruling was delivered at Nairobi on 20th September 2021.

Key legal issues

#
01

Exclusion of the period for supply of proceedings in computing time for filing a record of appeal

Holding

The exclusion applies only where the appellant proves a written request for proceedings to the deputy registrar and service of a copy of that request on the respondent; failing which the delay is not excused and the appeal is struck out.

Reasoning

The court noted two letters bespeaking the typed proceedings and judgment from the Chief Magistrate's Court at Ruiru. However, in computing time for preparing and presenting the record of appeal, the period of delay by the registry is excluded only on proof of two things: a written request to the deputy registrar and service of a copy on the respondent. Neither of the two letters was copied to the Respondent, so the Appellant could not demonstrate compliance, and the appeal could not be salvaged.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • To benefit from the exclusion of the period taken to prepare and supply proceedings when computing time for filing a record of appeal, an appellant must prove that a written request for proceedings was made to the deputy registrar and that a copy was served on the respondent.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is struck out with costs to the Respondent
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Ruiru
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the magistrates' court (employment/terminal dues matter); no specific constitutional or statutory provision is invoked in the judgment.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ruiru Feeds Limited v Samuel Njuguna Mbugua [2021] KEELRC 981 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/981/eng@2021-09-20

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