THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA v PROF. ANYANG’ NYONG’O & 10 OTHERS

Case Number APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2009
Summary

In 2009, the Appellant sought to appeal against the refusal of the First Instant Division to extend time to file an appeal against a taxed bill and the decision of a single Judge to refuse the extension. That application was itself filed out of time thus, the memorandum and record of appeal could not be served on the Respondents.

On 2nd June 2010, the appeal to the Appellate Division for extension of time to serve the memorandum and record of appeal was heard and granted. This appeal sought the review of the exercise of discretion by a single Judge of the First Instant Division.
RespondentPROF. ANYANG’ NYONG’O & 10 OTHERS
ComplainantTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA
Date filed
CountriesKenya
KeywordAppeal from Decision of a single Judge of the First Instance Division , Discretion , Extension of time , Practice and procedure , Treaty interpretation , Whether the Appellate Division can entertain an Appeal from a Decision of a single Judge
Treaty ArticleArticle 2 , Article 35 A , Article 42 , Article 50 , Articles of EAC Treaty , Rule 1 , Rule 114 , Rule 19 , Rule 2 , Rule 3 , Rule 4 , Rule 59 , Rule 77 , Rule 83 , Rules of Procedure 2010

First Instance Judgment

Verdict
PDF document
Date delivered
Quorum

Appeal Judgment

Verdict
  1. A single Judge of the First Instance Division has authority to entertain certain specified interlocutory matters under rule 59 such as applications for extension of time.
  2. In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between the Rulesand a provision of the Treaty, the Rule must yield place of priority to the Treaty. In the instant case, Article 35A of the Treaty, overrides
  3. Rule 59(3) of the Court’s Rules. Therefore, the Appellate Division of this Court may entertain an appeal, that is lodged with it directly from a single Judge.
  4. The learned trial Judge considered all the salient issues raised by the Appellant and exercised his discretion judiciously, not whimsically, nor capriciously, and cannot be faulted in any material particular. The Appeal was therefore disallowed.
PDF documentDownload the decision as PDF
Date deliveredAugust 18, 2010
Quorum