DAVID SOPON OLE LOROMA,MAANTA OLE PUTAPUTA,MAANTA OLE LEPASO,DANIEL MONKOTI SABAYA,MAINA KIPOOPO,TAPORU MASAINE,RAITA LENCHOKI & BARTIMARU also known as ILPARTIMARU GROUP RANCH vs LEMONO OLE NTENKESE,TUPET OLE MURRE alias OLKAUET & SAMUEL OLE PARASHU [2000] KECA 324 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal threw out an injunction request because the applicants filed their appeal notice late — the ruling's own date, not theirs, counted.
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 notice of appeal was defective and filed out of time, rendering the intended appeal incompetent
- 2.Whether the applicants' application for an injunction under rule 5(2)(b) should be struck out
Key legal issues
#Effect of an incorrect date of decision in a notice of appeal
The date of delivery stated in the ruling itself prevails over the erroneous date in the notice of appeal; a notice filed out of time from the correct date renders the intended appeal incompetent.
The notice of appeal referred to the decision as having been given on 22 October 1999, whereas the ruling records delivery on 21 October 1999. The court held that the ruling's own date prevails. Counted from that date, the notice filed on 5 November 1999 was out of time, so the intended appeal was incompetent and the rule 5(2)(b) application could not stand.
Legal principles established
#- Where a notice of appeal misstates the date of delivery of the decision appealed against, the date given in the ruling itself prevails, and a notice of appeal filed outside the prescribed period from that date renders the intended appeal incompetent.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicants' application for an injunction under rule 5(2)(b) of the Rules of this Court struck out with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for injunction pending appeal)
Relief refused
#Injunction under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
The notice of appeal was filed out of time, rendering the intended appeal incompetent
Costs
Application struck out with costs to the respondents
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.
The ruling itself gives the date of the delivery as 21 October 1999 and, in our judgment, this prevails. Accordingly, the notice of appeal filed on 5 November, 1999 was out of time and renders the intended appeal incompetent.
In the circumstances, we are construed to strike out the application filed by the applicants for an injunction under rule 5(2)(b) of the Rules of this Court with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains an internally garbled disposition sentence, apparently a typographical error, which obscures the precise wording of the striking-out order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "DAVID SOPON OLE LOROMA,MAANTA OLE PUTAPUTA,MAANTA OLE LEPASO,DANIEL MONKOTI SABAYA,MAINA KIPOOPO,TAPORU MASAINE,RAITA LENCHOKI & BARTIMARU also known as ILPARTIMARU GROUP RANCH vs LEMONO OLE NTENKESE,TUPET OLE MURRE alias OLKAUET & SAMUEL OLE PARASHU [2000] KECA 324 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2000). Civil Misc Appl 323 of 1999. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/324/eng@2000-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.