Francis Wakahiu Theuri v Monica Njeri, Esther Wangui, Catherine Muthoni, Francis Njuru Ngugi t/a Wawage Investment Company & Joseph Gituma Ndegwa & 29 others [2014] KECA 467 (KLR)

IN THE  COURT OF APPEAL

AT NAIROBI

(CORAM: KOOME,  MWERA & GATEMBU,  JJA.)

CIVIL  APPLICATION NO. NAI 323  OF 2013

BETWEEN

FRANCIS  WAKAHIU  THEURI  ……………………………………… APPLICANT

AND

MONICA  NJERI

ESTHERWANGUI

CATHERINEMUTHONI

FRANCIS  NJURU NGUGI T/A

WAWAGE INVESTMENT COMPANY .……..………………  1STRESPONDENT

JOSEPH  GITUMA  NDEGWA & 29 OTHERS   …...……….  2NDRESPONDENT

(Being an application for striking out the Notice of Appeal from the Ruling and Order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Pauline Nyamweya, J) dated  and delivered on 25thSeptember, 2013

in

ELC CASE NO. 2484 OF 1994)

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

RULING  OF THE  COURT

1.       The  applicant,  Francis Wakahiu  Theuri  has  moved  the Court under rule 84 of the rules of this Court to strike out notices of appeal dated 27th  September  2013  and 30th September 2013  lodged by the 1st  and 2nd   respondents respectively. The decision  of the High  Court to which those notices   of  appeal   relate   is   a  ruling   delivered  on   25th September 2013  by  which the High  Court dismissed the respondents’ two applications. The first application was for review of the judgment of the High  Court delivered  on 14th December   2012   in  favour  of  the  applicant.  The  second application was for stay of execution of that judgment.

Background

2.       The  applicant filed  suit in  the High  Court in  which he sought and obtained judgment in his favour against  the respondents. That  judgment  declared that  a  sale agreement dated 9th  February 1991 made between the applicant and  the respondents  in  respect of Title  Number Ruiru/Ruiru/Block 1  was  legally  rescinded; that  the respondents are trespassers on that property; and that the respondents should vacate the property. On his part the applicant  was  ordered to  refund  the  amount  of  Kshs. 1,560,000. 00 to the respondents with interest that he had received towards the purchase price under the rescinded agreement for sale. That judgment was delivered  on14th December  2012.  We understand that the respondents were aggrieved  by that judgment and  lodged  a notice of appeal on the 17th  December 2012.

3.       By    an    application   dated    16th      January   2013,     the respondents  applied   to the High  Court  for review of  the judgment and  for a declaration that the suit had  abated. By  an  application  dated  1st   February  2013,   the respondents  applied  for stay  of execution of the judgment pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal from the judgment.

4.       The  High  Court in  a ruling  delivered  on  25th  September 2013   dismissed the  application  for  review. In  the same ruling,   the  court   allowed   the  application   for  stay   of execution  of  the  judgment  on  condition that  the respondents   furnish  security  in   the  amount  of  Kshs. 80,000. 000. 00. Dissatisfied with ruling, the 1st  respondent lodged  a notice of appeal dated  27th  September  2013.  The 2nd   respondent lodged the notice of appeal dated 30th September 2013.  It is those two notices that the applicant has asked us to strike out.

Submissions  by counsel

5.       The grounds on the basis of which the applicant has asked the Court to strike out the notices of appeal are set out on the face of the application and  were argued before  us  by Mr.    Kihara  Ndiba    and   Ms.   Judy    Gichumbi,  learned counsel  for the applicant.

6.       The applicant contends  that the notices  of appeal  should be struck out because the intended appeal is frivolous, vexatious  and  an  attempt  to deprive the applicant quiet possession  of his  land;  that the appeal has no chances  or probability of success and  that the 1st  respondent has not complied with orders of the High Court.

7.       Mr.  Ndiba  submitted  that  after delivery of  judgment on 14th  December 2012,  a notice of appeal was filed  by the 1st respondent on 17th December  2012;  that that notice lapsed as the respondents  abandoned the intended appeal  from the judgment and opted to apply  for review and stay of the judgment  instead;  that  the  High   Court  granted stay  of execution  of  the  judgment  pending appeal  on  condition that security of Kshs.  80,000,000. 00 was  furnished; that the respondents  have  not complied with  that  condition; that the intended appeal from  the ruling of the High  Court declining to review the judgment and  imposing condition for stay  of execution is futile when  the judgment delivered on 14th December 2012  is itself not being appealed;  that in any  event  the notices  of  appeal  were  served  outside the time permitted under the rules, without leave of the Court.

8.       Opposing   the    application,      learned   counsel   Mr.    D.    M. Mwaura and  Mr.  Gachie  Mwanza  who appeared for the 1st and   2nd      respondents   respectively,   referred   us   to  the replying affidavits of Joseph Gituma Ndegwa and Francis Njuru Ngugi  and  submitted  that  the application  has  no merit;  that  the  application  is  not  based  on  any  of  the grounds permissible under  rule  84  of  the  rules  of  the Court;  that  there  are  only   three  grounds  or  instances under rule 84  when  the Court may  strike  out a notice of appeal  and  none  of  which  apply   in  this case;  that the notices of appeal were filed in time but service was delayed on  account  of  the  offices   of  the  applicant’s  advocates having   been  closed  and  subsequently relocated  following the  death of  the proprietor;  that  the late service  of  the notice of appeal is excusable  under rule 78 of the rules of the Court; and  that  the application is  in  any  event  filed outside the time limit permitted under rule 84 of the rules of the Court.

Determination

9.       We have considered the application, the affidavits and  the submissions of learned counsel. Rule 84 of the rules of the Court under which we are asked  to strike out the notices of appeal provides:

“A person affected by an appeal may  at any  time,  either    before  or    after  the institution of the appeal, apply to the Court to strike out the notice or the appeal, as the case  may  be, on the ground  that no appeal lies  or   that  some   essential  step  in   the proceedings  has  not  been  taken or  has  not been taken within the prescribed time. Provided that an  application to strike out a notice  of  appeal or  an  appeal shall  not  be brought after the expiry of thirty days  from the date of service of the notice of appeal or record   of appeal  as the  case  may be.”(emphasis)

10.     As submitted by counsel  for the respondents, the grounds for striking out a notice of appeal under that provision are limited by the rule. It is not the applicant’s case that the ruling delivered  by the High  Court on 25th September  2013 is not appealable, or that the respondents have skipped an essential  step  or that some  essential  step  has  not been taken within the prescribed period.  The grounds set out on the face  of  the applicant’s application,  which were canvassed  before us during the hearing of the application, would  in our view be grounds for argument at the hearing of the appeal itself.

11.     The  closest  the applicant  got  to bringing  himself within rule  84   was   a  contention  by   his   counsel   during  the hearing that the notices of appeal were served outside the time  period stipulated under rule 75  of  the rules of  the Court. Under  rule 75(2) of the rules of the Court “a person who  desires  to  appeal   against  a  decision is  required   to lodge a notice of appeal  within 14 days  of the date  of the decision desired to be appealed  from.”

12.     Under   rule 77(1)  “an  intended appellant shall,  before  or within  seven  days   after   lodging  notice  of  appeal,   serve copies   thereof   on  all  persons   directly  affected   by   the appeal.”

13.     The   two   notices    of   appeal    subject   of   the   present application were lodged  in  the High  Court on  1st  October 2013.    That   was   clearly   within   the   14   days   period stipulated under rule 75(2) of the rules of the Court.

14.     Based   on   the  applicant’s  affidavit   in   support  of   the application, the 1st  respondent’s notice of appeal dated 30th September  2013   was  served  on  the  18th    October   2013 while  the 2nd  respondent’s notice of appeal dated 27th September 2013  was served  on the 28th  October  2013.  In effect the applicant was not served within the 7 day period stipulated under rule 77(1) of the rules of the Court.

15.     In  their  replying affidavits, Joseph   Gituma Ndegwa  and Francis Njuru Ngugi have deposed that it was not possible to serve the notices on the firm of Njoroge & Musyoka advocates who were on record for the applicant as Mr. Njoroge  Musyoka advocate  of  that firm died  days  before the impugned ruling was delivered. In his affidavit, Joseph Gituma Ndegwa deposed that the death of Mr.  Njoroge “… led to his  previous office  at Capital Hill  Towers  Cathedral Road  being  closed  indefinitely and  the law  firm was  only reopened   in   their  new   premises   at  Commodore Office Suites, Ngong Road when they posted a notice of their whereabouts  on  the  door of  the  previous  premises.” To that affidavit is exhibited an extract from the Daily  Nation of  Friday 13th   September   2013  announcing the death of Mr. David  Njoroge “of Njoroge & Musyoka Advocates.”

16.     We agree  with  the counsel   for the respondents  that the circumstances in this case are covered by Rule 78 that provides:

“A notice of appeal shall not be incompetent by reason  only that the person on  whom   it  is required to be  served  was dead    at  the  time  when   the  notice   was lodged   but  a  copy  of  the  notice   shall   be served as soon as practicable on the legal representative of the deceased.”

17.     The  notices  of  appeal  were  required to be served  on  the firm of Njoroge  &  Musyoka Advocates.  They  could  not be served due to the closure of the law firm on account of the death of  Mr. Njoroge.  The  notices  were  thereafter served upon  the re­opening of the law firm at a different address. We therefore  agree  with counsel  for the respondents  that the late service  of the notices  is  cured by  rule 78  of the rules of the Court.

18.     There is another problem with the application with respect to the notice of appeal dated 30th September, 2013.   Under the proviso to rule 84 of the rules of the Court the present application  should  be  brought before  expiry  of  30  days from  date  of  service  of  the notice of  appeal.    It was  not brought until 27th  November,  2013.   While  the application was within 30 days of service of notice of appeal dated 27th September, 2013,  it was out of time in relation to notice of appeal dated 30th September, 2013.

19.     Accordingly  no  reasons or  sufficient  reasons have  been advanced for us to strike out the notices of appeal.  The application has no merits. It is dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Dated and delivered at Nairobi this  11thday of July,  2014.

M. K. KOOME

…………………………

JUDGE OF APPEAL

J. W. MWERA

……………..………..

JUDGE OF APPEAL

S. GATEMBU  KAIRU

…………………………

JUDGE OF APPEAL

I certify that this is a

true copy of the original.

DEPUTY  REGISTRAR

/ewm