Inspector General of Government v Kikonda Butema Farm (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 11 of 2003)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The IGG sought extension of time to appeal the Court of Appeal's order remitting a certiorari leave application to the High Court. The court held that because the original leave proceedings were commenced ex parte and the applicant's attendance had been dispensed with under Rule 77(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the applicant was not entitled to notice of delivery of judgment; and that, since no order of certiorari had yet been granted, section 38(3) of the Judicature Statute was irrelevant at that stage and the cited authority was distinguishable. The application was dismissed with costs.
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs; applicant to be served with hearing notice in the High Court certiorari proceedings.
Facts
In Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered that an application for leave to apply for orders of certiorari be remitted to the High Court for hearing de novo before another judge, and that the High Court proceedings be stayed. The IGG had been the respondent in that matter, which proceeded ex parte, and was not served with notice of delivery of judgment, learning of the ruling only on 8 July 2003. The IGG applied for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal, contending that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction over the prerogative orders under section 38(3) of the Judicature Statute. Meanwhile, on 11 July 2003 the High Court granted leave to apply for certiorari ex parte, pending an inter partes hearing.
Issues
- Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time within which to file a Notice of Appeal against the Court of Appeal's ruling.
- Whether the applicant was entitled to be served with notice of delivery of the Court of Appeal's judgment in proceedings that had been commenced and heard ex parte.
- Whether section 38(3) of the Judicature Statute, concerning the finality of and right of appeal against prerogative orders, applied where no order of certiorari had yet been granted.
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs.
- Applicant to be served with hearing notice so that all legal issues are argued and determined in the High Court.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
- Rules of the Supreme Court r.4
- Rules of the Supreme Court r.5(2)
- Rules of the Supreme Court r.7
- Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act s.3(2)
- Judicature Statute 1996 s.38(3)
- Court of Appeal Rules r.77(1)
Cases cited (2)
- Attorney General V State (1971) EA 50
- Attorney General V Shah (1971) EA 50
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.