Case Metadata |
|
Case Number: | Civil Appeal 173 of 2002 |
---|---|
Parties: | Southern Credit Banking Corporation Ltd v Tulip Apartments Limited, Lorimar Apartments Limited & Mohamed A.K. Madhani Advocate Practising as Mohamed Madhani & Co. Advocates |
Date Delivered: | 16 Jan 2003 |
Case Class: | Civil |
Court: | Court of Appeal at Nairobi |
Case Action: | Ruling |
Judge(s): | Emmanuel Okello O'Kubasu, Abdulrasul Ahmed Lakha, Moijo Matayia Ole Keiwua |
Citation: | Southern Credit Banking Corporation Ltd v Tulip Apartments Limited & 2 others[2003] eKLR |
Case History: | (Appeal from the ruling and order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr. Justice Rimita) dated 16th May, 2002 in H.C.C.C NO. 284 OF 2002) |
Court Division: | Civil |
Parties Profile: | Corporation v Corporation |
County: | Nairobi |
History Docket No: | 284 of 2002 |
History Judges: | David Maitai Rimita |
History County: | Nairobi |
Case Outcome: | Appeal Struck out |
Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: LAKHA, O'KUBASU & KEIWUA, JJ.A)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2002
BETWEEN
SOUTHERN CREDIT BANKING CORPORATION LTD.................................APPELLANT
AND
TULIP APARTMENTS LIMITED .........................................................1ST RESPONDENT
LORIMAR APARTMENTS LIMITED .................................................2ND RESPONDENT
MOHAMED A.K. MADHANI ADVOCATE
Practising as MOHAMED MADHANI & CO. ADVOCATES ..........3RD RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the ruling and order of the High Court of
Kenya at Nairobi (Mr. Justice Rimita) dated 16th
May, 2002
in
H.C.C.C NO. 284 OF 2002)
************
RULING OF THE COURT
The record of appeal does not include the practising certificate of the advocate as is properly conceded although this was a matter which was very much in issue. The learned judge refers to the production of this certificate in his judgment as having been produced by consent. That being so, this omission is in breach of the mandatory provision of rules 85(1) (f) of the Rules of this Court and renders the appeal incurably defective and incompetent.
It is therefore not necessary to deal with the question whether leave to appeal was required or not.
Accordingly, the appeal being incompetent, is struck out but with no order as to costs as it was not raised by the respondents.
Made at Nairobi this 16th day of January, 2003.
A.A. LAKHA
...............
JUDGE OF APPEAL
E.O O'KUBASU
...............
JUDGE OF APPEAL
M. Ole KEIWUA
...............
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a
true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR