SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Telkom Kenya Ltd v Jeremiah Achila Gogo & another [2007] KECA 289 (KLR)

[2007] KECA 289 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
289
Citation
[2007] KECA 289 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
Typecivil appealPostureappeal from a judgment of the High CourtCoramJUDGE OF APPEAL, Kaburu Bauni, JUDGE OF APPEAL, P.N. Waki, JUDGE OF APPEAL, J.W. Onyango Otieno
Holding

We dismiss this appeal with costs.

Facts

Jeremiah Achila Gogo filed a lawsuit against Kenya Posts and Telecommunications Corporation (KPTC) for damages and other reliefs related to wrongful termination of employment. KPTC was named as the successor of the Corporation under Legal Notice No. 132 of 2001. The High Court awarded Kshs.400,000 to the plaintiff. The two institutions filed objection proceedings, claiming they were not parties to the suit and that no steps had been taken to make them parties. The High Court upheld Postal Corporation's objection and ordered the release of its property.

Issues

  1. whether the failure by the respondent to apply for substitution of the defendant with the appellant disentitled the respondent to the right to execute decree in the above suit against the appellant

Reasoning

The Legal Notice No. 132 of 2001 brought Telkom Kenya Limited into the case, which otherwise would have been excluded. It was not necessary to move the courts to substitute the new bodies in place of KPTC, but it would have been prudent to make Telkom Kenya Limited a party. The appellant was not prejudiced as its corporation secretary had notice of the suit.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Kenya Communications Act, Act No.2 of 1998
  • Civil Procedure Rules
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case