Geofrey Mbugua Dedan & 2 others v Joseph Mbugua Dedan Gachumi & another [2017] KECA 289 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal killed a stalled appeal because the appellants sat on the case file for too long, and cancelled the order protecting them from paying.
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 respondents failed to file their appeal within the period prescribed by Rule 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules after proceedings were availed
- 2.Whether the notice of appeal dated 11th March 2014 should be deemed withdrawn under Rule 83
- 3.Whether the orders of stay of execution granted by the High Court should be discharged upon such deemed withdrawal
Key legal issues
#Deemed withdrawal of notice of appeal under Rule 83 for failure to file appeal within prescribed time
The notice of appeal was deemed withdrawn because the respondents, notified on 22nd October 2015 that proceedings were ready, had not filed the appeal by 21st December 2015 or at all, and offered no credible explanation for the inaction
Rule 82 requires an appeal to be filed within 60 days of proceedings being availed. The Deputy Registrar notified parties on 22nd October 2015. The respondents claimed their advocates never received the notification letter, but the letter was copied to the correct addresses and the advocates themselves did not swear affidavits or produce evidence of inquiries to the court. Even after being served with the application containing the letter, they made no effort to collect the proceedings. The court found no diligence and invoked Rule 83.
Limits of the overriding objective and Article 159(2)(b) in excusing procedural default
The overriding objective and Article 159(2)(b) do not save a party who has wholly failed to take essential steps within prescribed time; technicality-de-emphasising provisions cannot be invoked where a foundation for their application is not laid
Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act demand timely and expeditious disposal of appeals, and Article 159(2)(b) demands that justice not be delayed. Citing Kantaria and Onyango, the court held the overriding objective is not a panacea for all ills and cannot be invoked as a matter of course to excuse any failing to abide by appellate rules. In this case the respondents' total inaction outweighed any indulgence the provisions might offer.
Consequence of deemed withdrawal on interim orders
Upon deeming the notice of appeal withdrawn, the stay of execution granted by the High Court pending appeal was vacated
The High Court had on 18th June 2015 stayed execution of its decree pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal. Once the notice of appeal was deemed withdrawn, there was no appeal to which the stay could attach, and the applicants had specifically sought discharge of the stay. The court therefore vacated the stay orders as a consequential relief.
Legal principles established
#- Where an appellant fails to file an appeal within 60 days of proceedings being availed, the Court may, under Rule 83, on application or on its own motion, deem the notice of appeal withdrawn
- The overriding objective cannot be invoked as a matter of course to excuse a party's failure to comply with appellate rules
- A party cannot depose to facts outside their own knowledge regarding their advocates' conduct without explanation why the advocates did not swear the affidavit themselves
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of appeal dated 11th March 2014 is deemed to have been withdrawn
- 2.The orders of stay of execution granted by the High Court on 18th June 2015 are vacated
- 3.The applicants are awarded costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- HCCC No. 268 of 1997
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent/appellate jurisdiction under Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 83 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application to deem notice of appeal withdrawn)
Relief refused
#Respondents' continued pursuit of the intended appeal
They failed to take an essential step (filing the appeal) within the prescribed time despite notification that proceedings were ready
Costs
The applicants shall have costs of this application.
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 notice of appeal dated 11th March 2014 is hereby deemed to have been withdrawn. The orders of stay of execution granted by the High Court on 18th June 2015 are hereby vacated. The applicants shall have costs of this application. It is so ordered.
They have simply failed to take an essential step within the prescribed time. In such a case, rule 83 empowers this Court, on the application of any party or on its own motion, to deem the notice of appeal as withdrawn.
Sections 3A and 3B cannot be invoked as a matter of course so as to excuse all and any kind of failing on the part of a party to abide by the requirements of the rules made to regulate appeals to the Court.
It cannot fall for the respondents to purport to depose to those facts, which are not within their knowledge, without any kind of explanation as to why the advocates could not swear the affidavit.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the Deputy Registrar's letter inconsistently, stating the letter was dated 22nd October 2015 earlier in the judgment but then referring to 'the letter dated 22nd October 2016' when addressing the respondents' claim of non-receipt
The judgment records the 1st applicant's name as 'GEOFREY MBUGUA DEDAN' in the title but as 'Geoffrey Mbugua Dedan' in the narrative
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Republic v County Secretary County Government of Kirinyaga & another [2020] KEELC 1914 (KLR)[2020] KEELC 1914 (KLR)5 Jun 2020
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Geofrey Mbugua Dedan & 2 others v Joseph Mbugua Dedan Gachumi & another [2017] KECA 289 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Civil Application No. 276 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2017/289/eng@2017-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.