Lalji Meghji Patel v Karsan Premji

Court of Appeal for East Africa, Mombasa 11th May 1976

Wambuzi P, Law V-P & Mustafa JA

Fundamental rights and freedom of conscience - non-interference with matters of religion and conscience- action seeking to regulate internal matters of religious organisation misconceived- Constitution of Kenya, section 78.

The freedom of conscience guaranteed by section 78 of the Constitution precludes the Courts from interfering in matters of religion and conscience except where there is a breach of the law; accordingly, the Courts would not interfere with matters of dogma, ritual or other internal matters within the competence of a church or religious establishment.

No cases were referred to in the judgments.

Appeal

Lalji Meghji Patel, chairman of Shree Cutch Satsang Swaminarayan Temple, Nairobi, appealed to the Court of Appeal for East Africa (Civil Appeal No 61 of 1975) against the decision of Sheridan J in the High Court at Mombasa (Civil Case No 368 of 1973) in which he dismissed the appellant’s action against Karsan Premji, the respondent and the chairman of the Shree Cutch Satsang Swaminarayan Temple, Mombasa, for declarations and injunctions. The facts are set out in the judgment of Law V-P.

Aya Jiwaji (instructed by Bhandari & Bhandari) for the Appellant.

Sadiq Ghalia for the Respondent.

Abdul Aziz Ngoma v Mungai Mathayo & another

Court of Appeal for East Africa, Mombasa 20th February 1976

Wambuzi P, Law V-P & Mustafa JA

Time – extension of time limit – grounds for extension – failure to serve document in time – memorandum of appeal and record of appeal to Court of Appeal for East Africa – no sufficient reason to grant application to extend time.

Failure by an advocate to undertake procedural steps before the Court of Appeal for East Africa, such as the service of the memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal on the respondent, within the time limit prescribed by the Rules of Court is fatal and any application for an extension of the time limit will be refused. The Court has no discretion to consider questions of prejudice and the prospects for success unless it is first shown that there is sufficient reason to extend the time limit.

Shah Meghji Mulji Ltd v Shah Kanji Meghji (unreported), Court of Appeal for East Africa, followed.

Cases referred to in judgment:

Dodhia v National & Grindlays Bank Ltd [1970] EA 195.

Shah Meghji Mulji Ltd v Shah Kanji Meghji (unreported) Civil Appeal No 51 of 1973, Court of Appeal for East Africa.

Interlocutory application

The appellant, Abdul Aziz Ngoma, having failed to serve the memorandum of appeal and the record of appeal (in Civil Appeal No 55 of 1975) on the respondents, Mungai Mathayo and Thuo Macharia, in the time prescribed by the Rules of Court in respect of his appeal from the decision of Sheridan J in the High Court at Mombasa on 9th September 1975 (Civil Case No 236 of 1974) applied to the Court of Appeal for East Africa for an extension of time in which to serve the memorandum and record. The respondents applied to have the appeal struck out. The facts are set out in the judgment of the court.

AYA Jiwaji (instructed by Jiwaji & Jiwaji) for the Appellant.

MAC Satchu (instructed by Atkinson, Cleasby & Satchu) for the Respondents.