DANIEL KIPKEMBOI BETT & 7 OTHERS V. MARGARET WANJIKU CHEGE

RULING OF THE COURT

In BIGGUZI v. RANK LEISURE PLC [1999] 1 W.L.R. 1926, Lord Woolf, dealing with the question of over-riding objective in litigation had this to say:-

“Under the CPR the position is fundamentally different. As rule 1.1 makes clear the CPR are ‘new procedural code with overriding objective of enabling the court, to deal with cases justly’. The problem with the position prior to the introduction of the CPR was that often the courts had to take draconian steps, such as striking out the proceedings, in order to stop a general culture of failing to prosecute proceedings expeditiously. ---------. That led to litigation which was fought furiously on both sides: on behalf of the claimants to preserve their claim, and on behalf of the defendants to bring the litigation to an end irrespective of the justice of the case because of failure to comply with the rules of the court.”

Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act was introduced into our civil litigation system by …