Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealStruck OutCivil Appeal (Application) No. 80 of 1999· [2000] KECA 275 (KLR)

Pepco Construction Company Limited v Carter & Sons Limited

Court of Appeal of Kenya
24 March 2000
JGJ. E. GicheruASA. B. ShahEOE. Owuor
1,559 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Sloppy appeal paperwork proved fatal: Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out Carter & Sons' appeal, leaving a Ksh. 7.2 million judgment intact.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Gicheru, Shah and Owuor, JJ.A) on an application by Pepco Construction Company Limited, the successful plaintiff below, to strike out the notice of appeal and appeal of Carter & Sons Limited, the third defendant, from a judgment of Shields J dated 26 November 1992 in H.C.C.C No. 5638 of 1989 awarding Ksh. 7,200,000 jointly and severally against three defendants. The applicant attacked the notice of appeal on three fronts: it was headed 'Notice of Intended Appeal', a document unknown to the Rules; it was filed in the name of Pepco Construction & Transport Company Limited, a name amended by order of the trial judge before judgment, putting it at variance with the decree; and the record of appeal was riddled with typing errors, omitted paragraphs, and omitted an exhibit (the record of Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1990) admitted in evidence at trial. The court agreed with all three complaints. It held that rule 74(6) requires a notice substantially in Form D and that a 'Notice of Intended Appeal' is not that document; that the naming error and the record defects were incurable, not amendable under rule 44; and that omission of an admitted exhibit breached the mandatory rule 85(1)(f) and could not be cured by a supplementary record. Because a valid Notice of Appeal is the primary document conferring jurisdiction on the Court, its absence rendered the appeal incompetent. The appeal was struck out with costs to the applicant, who also received the costs of the application. The High Court judgment itself was not disturbed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the Notice of Appeal

Holding

The document headed 'Notice of Intended Appeal' and filed in the name of the wrong party contravened rule 74 and was incurably defective, rendering the appeal incompetent.

Reasoning

Rule 74(1) requires a person desiring to appeal to give notice in writing lodged with the registrar, and rule 74(6) requires it to be substantially in Form D. A 'Notice of Intended Appeal' is not the envisaged document. The notice also named Pepco Construction & Transport Company Limited, a name amended by order of Shields J before judgment, putting it at variance with the decree. The errors were not curable under rule 44, no amendment having been sought.

p. 3
02

Completeness of the record of appeal

Holding

The numerous typing errors, misspellings, gaps and omitted paragraphs made the record defective under rule 85(1)(d).

Reasoning

Counsel for the respondent did not deny the errors but argued they caused no prejudice. The court held that errors so numerous, including whole paragraphs left out, are not the kind that leave the appeal unaffected; they are serious errors rendering the record defective under rule 85(1)(d).

p. 3
03

Omission of an admitted exhibit

Holding

Omitting the record of Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1990, an exhibit admitted in evidence, breached the mandatory rule 85(1)(f) and made the record incurably defective.

Reasoning

The exhibit had been produced and admitted by consent and the learned Judge's own judgment referred to photographs in it. Being part of the proceedings, it was a primary document that had to be in the record of appeal; it could not be introduced by supplementary record, so the appeal was incompetent.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A Notice of Appeal is the primary document conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal; a record of appeal must contain a valid Notice of Appeal, failing which the appeal is incompetent.
  • There is no such document known to the Rules as a 'Notice of Intended Appeal'; a notice not substantially in Form D under rule 74(6) is invalid.
  • An exhibit admitted in evidence in the superior court is part of the proceedings and must be included in the record of appeal; its omission breaches rule 85(1)(f) and cannot be cured by a supplementary record.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is struck out
  2. 2.Costs of the appeal to the applicant
  3. 3.The applicant to have the costs of this application
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C.C.C No. 5638 of 1989
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 42, 74, 80 and 85 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application to strike out notice of appeal and appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (3)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Pepco Construction Company Limited v Carter & Sons Limited", Case Analysis (2000). Civil Appeal (Application) No. 80 of 1999. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/275/eng@2000-03-24

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.