Sabiiti v Byoma (HC CV CA No. 0011 of 2010)
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 High Court struck off the appeal for procedural non-compliance where the appellant amended the memorandum of appeal to substitute a deceased party and add new grounds without obtaining leave of court as required by Order 24 Rules 3 and 12 and Order 43 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Outcome
Appeal struck off with leave to take remedial measures to rectify the appeal
Facts
Paulo Sabiiti appealed against the judgment of a Magistrate Grade 1 delivered on 26th January 2010. After Paulo Sabiiti died, Joseph Kisembo as Administrator of his estate amended the Memorandum of Appeal to substitute himself as appellant and added additional grounds of appeal. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Appellant had amended the Memorandum and substituted a party without obtaining leave of court or the Respondent's consent. The Appellant argued that no express provision required formal leave and cited Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution requiring justice without undue regard to technicalities.
Issues
- Whether the Appellant could amend a Memorandum of Appeal without leave of court.
- Whether a deceased appellant could be substituted by a legal representative without application by Notice of Motion.
Orders
- Appeal struck off.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.