BROOKE BOND (K) LTD …………………………………….. APPELLANT VERSUS BENSON NYAKOE NYAGANDA …….…………………… RESPONDENT RULING I: Background 1. The Respondent being dissatisfied with a ruling within a trial made by the magistrate, applied to appeal against the same. The trial magistrate granted the application to appeal within 30 days a stay of proceedings was also granted. 2. The file was placed before the Hon. Judge and on 9th June, 2004 (L. Kimaru J) it was admitted for hearing. 3. The directions was taken up on 31st March, 2009. The Applicant/Respondents application had been dismissed for non attendance on 2nd December, 2008. The Applicant/Respondent instead of giving good cause why the said application should not be reinstated, files a notice stating the very same thing as the application that was struck out on 2nd December, 2008. 4. Objection to the court’s jurisdiction requires to be taken prior to the hearing of an appeal. 5. In response the Appellant/Respondent’s advocate states order XLIX Civil Procedure Rules should apply. 6. To enlarge time an application under order LI r 1 Civil Procedure Rules as read with order XLIX Civil Procedure Rules should be made by chamber summons in the same file or by originating summons in a file not before Court. 7. It was therefore noted that the appeal had been filed out of time. No leave to apply to file the same within time was made. The preliminary objection is upheld and appeal is dismissed and struck out. DATED this 31st day of March, 2009 at KERICHO M.A. ANG’AWA JUDGE Advocates E.M. Orina advocate from M/S E.M. Orina & Co. advocates instructed to hold brief for M/S R.K. Muthiga & Co. advocates for the appellant originally Defendant – present S.B. Mbeche advocate instructed by M/S S.B. Mbeche & Co. advocates for the Respondent originally Plaintiff - present
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.