Manilal and Company v Nurmohamed and Co Ltd and Another (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1955)
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
An appeal to the Court of Appeal from a Judge's order refusing to vary a taxing master's decision requires leave of the Judge under rule 7(2) of the Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules. Where the Judge has refused leave to appeal, no further appeal lies to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was therefore incompetent and dismissed.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as incompetent
Facts
The appellants had objected to a taxing master's decision on costs. A Judge of the Supreme Court of Kenya refused to vary the taxing master's decision. The appellants then applied to the same Judge for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which application was dismissed. The appellants nevertheless purported to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Issues
- Whether an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal where a Judge has refused leave to appeal from an order refusing to vary a taxing master's decision.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules of Court rule 7(2)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.