PETER NDIRANGU V. MARY KARANJA

RULING

I am aware of the fact that many counsel are now beginning to realise that they do not have certified copies of proceedings and judgment to mount an appeal. These blunders have led to a lot of problems in that appeals have been struck out as the parties had no benefit of the provio to rule 81(1). I have carefully perused the application before me. I cannot say that the advocates have been inactive. The firm of Kamau Karoki and Company, Advocates were doing their bungling best to file the appeal. I would not want to punish the applicant for errors of advocates especially when the applicant is not aware of what is happening. I am told the appeal has already been lodged on 30th August, 2001. It is Civil Appeal No. 226 of 2001.

I am not able to say that the appeal is frivolous. Using the discretion donated to me by rule 4 of the Rules of this Court I allow this application and order that Civil Appeal No. 226 of 2001 lodged on 30th August, 2001 is deemed to be filed in time. The appl…