LALI SWALEH LALI & 3 others v STEPHEN MATHENGE WACHIRA & 3 others [1998] KECA 42 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out most of the appellants' appeal grounds, showing poorly drafted memoranda of appeal can be trimmed dramatically.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the paragraphs of the Memorandum of Appeal identified in the Notice of Motion dated 5th June, 1998 should be struck out
Key legal issues
#Striking out of paragraphs of the Memorandum of Appeal
The court allowed the application and struck out the specified paragraphs of the memorandum of appeal, reserving its reasons for a later judgment.
The ruling records only that the court heard rival submissions of counsel and allowed the motion as prayed. No reasoning is given because the court expressly reserved its reasons for delivery in its substantive judgment. The operative effect is the excision of the listed paragraphs from the memorandum of appeal.
Legal principles established
#- This is an interlocutory ruling allowing a striking-out application against portions of a memorandum of appeal, with reasons reserved; it does not announce a binding rule of law beyond the striking out of the identified paragraphs of this appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.The application as prayed in the Notice of Motion dated 5th June, 1998 is allowed
- 2.Paragraphs 1, 2, 4-10, 12-31, 34-40, 42-43, 45-48, 55-58, 60 and 62-75 in the Memorandum of Appeal are struck out
- 3.Reasons reserved to be given in the Court's judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. No. 3374 of 1994
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over the appeal from the High Court (Civil Appeal 271 of 1997); the ruling itself determines a Notice of Motion dated 5th June, 1998 within that appeal
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Having heard the rival submissions of counsel for the parties to this application, we allow the application as prayed in the Notice of Motion dated 5th June, 1998.
Consequently, paragraphs 1, 2, 4 -10, 12 -31, 34 - 40, 42 - 43, 45 - 48, 55 - 58, 60 and 62 - 75 in the Memorandum of Appeal are struck out.
We reserve our reasons and we shall give them in our judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The document is an interlocutory ruling with reasons expressly reserved, not the substantive judgment; the court states it will give reasons later, so no ratio reasoning is available in this document.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "LALI SWALEH LALI & 3 others v STEPHEN MATHENGE WACHIRA & 3 others [1998] KECA 42 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1998). Civil Appeal 271 of 1997. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1998/42/eng@1998-06-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.