|
R U L I N G
This ruling is in respect of an
application by the plaintiff for
extension of time to
cross-appeal pursuant to rule 9
of the Court of Appeal Rules,
1997 (C.I. 19) as amended.
The facts culminating in the
instant application are not in
dispute. On 21st
December, 2011 this court gave
judgment in favour of the
plaintiff. The defendant
aggrieved by the said judgment
filed an appeal to the Court of
Appeal on 9th
January, 2012. The plaintiff in
the instant application seeks to
cross-appeal for according to
him he is also dissatisfied with
certain portions of the said
judgment.
It is my view that the instant
application brought pursuant to
rule 9 of C.I. 19 is
incompetent. The proper rule of
Court for cross-appeal is rule
15 of C.I. 19 which provides as
follows:
“15.
Notice for variation of judgment
(1)
It is not necessary for the
respondent to give notice by way
of cross-appeal, but if a
respondent intends on the
hearing of the appeal to contend
that the decision of the Court
below should be varied, the
respondent shall give, within
one month after service of the
notice of appeal, written notice
in the Form 7 set out in Part
one of the Schedule of that
intention to every party who may
be affected by the contention.
(2)
The respondent shall clearly
state in the written notice the
grounds on which the respondent
intends to rely and within the
same period shall file with the
Registrar of the Court below
five copies of the notice, one
of which shall be included in
the record.
(3)
…
It is obvious from rule 15 of
C.I. 19 that the plaintiff
instant application is
completely misconceived for he
proceeds pursuant to rule 9 of
C.I. 19. There is no provision
in rule 15 of C.I. 19 for an
extension of time to comply with
Form 7. In any case the
plaintiff did not attempt to
comply with Form 7.
The plaintiff’s instant
application therefore lacks
merit and it is dismissed.
UUTER PAUL DERY
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
*aq* |
