OCHIENG V. RANMAL MERAG LTD

JUDGMENT

The application for that which is described in the notice of motion healed as being under rule 42 of this Court’s Rules (cap 9) for leave to file the intended appeal out of time. I take this to refer to the institution of the appeal under rule 81(1), that the application is made under rule 4, as it now stands, and that the reference to the general enabling rule as to the manner of bringing the application before the court is surplusage. In all applications the substantive rule providing for the exercise of the power sought should appear in the heading of the Notice of Motion.

Mr Omondo, who appears for the applicant, has outlined the history of the appeal since the decision of Schofield J (against which the appeal is intended) on November 2, 1983, whereby he dismissed an application under order XXI rule 78 of the Civil Procedure Rules (cap 21) to set aside the proposed sale of the applicant’s property at Bukhayo/Mundika/1525, which had been sold pursuant to a court order of Jul…