Civil Appeal (Application) 312 of 2009

Help

Advanced Search mode is suitable for finding a particular case when you have details that describe the case at hand e.g. (names of parties, case number, case year etc).
To find a case according to its meta data (names of parties, case number, and date of delivery, case year etc) one need not fill in all the fields. You may use any one or more search criteria; search using whatever information you have..

Download: PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML Show Metadata

Premier Diary Limited v Amarjit Singh Sagoo & another [2011] eKLR

Case Metadata
Case Number:	Civil Appeal (Application) 312 of 2009
Parties:	Premier Diary Limited v Amarjit Singh Sagoo & Kurshbikau Harjeet Singh Chandha (suing as the Legal dministrator of the estate of Harjeet Charan Singh Chandha
Date Delivered:	13 Apr 2011
Case Class:	Civil
Court:	Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Case Action:	Ruling
Judge(s):	Philip Kiptoo Tunoi, Emmanuel Okello O'Kubasu, Erastus Mwaniki Githinji
Citation:	Premier Diary Limited v Amarjit Singh Sagoo & another [2011] eKLR
Case History:	(Application to strike out the Record of Appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Kisumu (Warsame, J.) dated 18th September, 2007 in H.C.C.C. NO. 61 OF 2001)
Court Division:	Civil
County:	Kisumu
History Docket No:	H.C.C.C. NO. 61 OF 2001
History Judges:	Mohammed Abdullahi Warsame
Case Summary:	*[Ruling] Civil practice and procedure-striking out*-application to strike out the record of appeal-grounds of application, inter alia, that the appellant did not issue any notice of appeal and that the appellant did not seek leave of court to be joined as a party of interested party-whether the appeal was incurably defective-overriding objective-validity of application-Appellate Jurisdiction Act (cap 9) sections 3A & 3B; Court of Appeal Rules (cap 9 Sub Leg) Rules 42 (1) (2), 80; Constitution of Kenya, 2010 Article 159 (1) (d)
History County:	Kisumu
Case Outcome:	Notice of motion dismissed
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

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

AT KISUMU

(CORAM: TUNOI, O’KUBASU & GITHINJI, JJ.A.)

CIVIL APPEAL (APPLICATION) NO. 312 OF 2009

BETWEEN

PREMIER DIARY LIMITED ..............................................................APPELLANT

AND

AMARJIT SINGH SAGOO.......................................................1^ST RESPONDENT

KURSHBIKAU HARJEET SINGH CHANDHA (Suing as the legal administrator of the Estate of HARJEET CHARAN SINGH CHANDHA .................2^ND RESPONDENT

(Application to strike out the Record of Appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Kisumu (Warsame, J.)

dated 18^th September, 2007

H.C.C.C. NO. 61 OF 2001)

**************************

RULING OF THE COURT

The application which came up for hearing before us on 17^th March, 2011 was by way of Notice of Motion expressed as having been brought under

“Rule 42(1) and (2) and 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules. There was only one prayer sought in that application and that was:-

“THAT The Honourable (sic) be pleased to strike out Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2009 with costs.”

The application was brought on the following grounds:-

“1. That the appellant, namely PREMIER DIARY LIMITED, was not a party in the High Court proceedings in Kisumu High Court Civil Case No. 61 of 2001.

2. THAT the appellant did not issue any Notice of Appeal upon which the present appeal can be premised as required under Rule 74 of this court’s rule.

3. THAT by virtue of ground 2 above the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.

4. THAT the applicant will rely on the record of appeal filed on 21^st December, 2009 herein to argue the motion.

5. THAT the appellant did not seek leave of court to be joined as a party or interested party.

6. THAT the appellant has no right of appeal.

7. THAT the appeal is incurably and fatally defective.

8. THAT further grounds such as may arise shall be argued at the hearing hereof.”

In addition to the foregoing grounds there was a sworn affidavit by Wesley Robinson Gichaba. In that affidavit, Mr. Gichaba deponed:-

“1. THAT I am Advocate of High Court of Kenya practicing in the name of Gichaba & Company Advocates having the conduct of this matter for and on behalf of the 2^nd Respondent/Applicant hence conversant with facts and duly authorized to swear this affidavit.

2. THAT my true place of abode is TOM MBOYA ESTATE, KISUMU.

3. THAT I know of my own knowledge the appellant served me with the complete record of appeal on 21^st December, 2009, which was during the Christmas vacation.

4. THAT upon perusal of the record I realized that the appellant is PREMIER DIARY LIMITED.

5. THAT I know of my own knowledge that Premier Diary Limited was not a party in the High Court proceedings which is the subject of the appeal herein.

6. THAT the Memorandum of Appeal found at page 1 of the record of appeal indicates the Premier Diary Limited is aggrieved by the decision of Warsame, J. dated 18^th September, 2007 and delivered by Mugo, J. on 25^th September, 2007 when it was not a party.

7. THAT the plaint filed in the superior court and summons issued thereof were against two defendants namely:

a) Amarjit Singh Sagoo and

b) Premier Dairy Limited.

8. THAT Premier Diary Limited did not issue any notice of appeal hence the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal by a busy body.

9. THAT I verily believe that in the premises the appeal filed is incurably defective and should be struck out.

10. THAT I swear this affidavit in support of the application to strike out the entire appeal with costs.

11. THAT in support of the application for the orders sought I will also rely on the record of appeal in the Court of Appeal at Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2009.”

In his submissions, Mr. W.R. Gichaba, the learned Counsel for the applicant, simply rehashed what he had sworn in his affidavit and emphasized that the respondent/appellant was not a party in the High Court proceedings.

In opposing the application Mr. W.A. Amoko, the learned Counsel for the appellant/respondent, submitted that the application related to the names “Diary” and “Dairy” which in his view amounted to triviliality which caused no prejudice to the applicant.

In the High Court Civil Suit No. 61 of 2001 which gave rise to the Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2009, the 2^nd respondent (which is the appellant in this Court) is described as “PREMIER DAIRY LTD.”. However, the record of appeal shows the appellant’s name as “PREMIER DIARY LTD.” Mr. Amoko described this as an innocent slip. We would agree with Mr. Amoko that this “innocent slip” caused no prejudice to the applicant.

Article 159(1) (d) of the Constitution provides:-

“justice shall be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities.”

And Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act provide:-

“3A (1) The overriding objective of this Act and the rules made hereunder is to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of the appeals governed by the Act.

(2) The Court shall, in the exercise of its powers under this Act or the interpretation of any of its provisions, seek to give effect to the overriding objective specified in subsection (1).

(3) An advocate in an appeal presented to the Court is under a duty to assist the Court to further the overriding objective and, to that effect, to participate in the processes of the Court and to comply with directions and orders of the Court.

“3B (1) For the purpose of furthering the overriding objective specified in section 3A, the Court shall handle all matters presented before it for the purpose of attaining the following aims –

(a) the just determination of the proceedings;

(b) the efficient use of the available judicial and administrative resources;

(c) the timely disposal of the proceedings, and all other proceedings in the Court, at a cost affordable by the respective parties; and

(d) the use of suitable technology.”

What has engaged the Court in this application is simply the fact that instead of describing the appellant as PREMIER DAIRY LTD, it was described as PREMIER DIARY LTD. And for that mere slip which was described by Mr. Amoko as “innocent slip”, we are being asked to strike out the entire record of appeal! We do not think this Court would be persuaded to take such a drastic step of striking out this appeal, especially in view of the provisions of the Constitution and the Appellate Jurisdiction Act as set out above.

In view of the foregoing, we find no merit in this application and we order that the Notice of Motion dated 30^th January, 2010 be and is hereby dismissed with costs.

Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 13^th day of April, 2011.

P.K. TUNOI

....................................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

E.O. O’KUBASU

....................................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

E.M. GITHINJI

....................................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

I certify that this is a true copy of the original.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Download PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML

Please enter advanced search options

Case Content:		Subject:
Case Number:		Parties:
Judge:		Court:
	Delivery Date Range:
From:		To:

Except for some material which is expressly stated to be under a specified Creative Commons license, the contents of this website are in the public domain and free from any copyright restrictions

Case Search

Civil Appeal (Application) 312 of 2009

Case Metadata

Please enter advanced search options