Try asking the following...
R U L I N G
ATUGUBA, J.S.C.
The applicants were some of the petitioners in a chieftaincy case in the Central Region House of Chiefs. Their capacity to continue with the action was challenged unsuccessfully before that trial tribunal. However on appeal the National House of Chiefs allowed it by a 4-1 decision and dismissed the action.
The applicants then appealed to this court. However upon receipt by counsel of his clients, copy of the record of appeal, he, instead of filing a statement of their case rather raised certain objections to the state of the record in a letter, exhibit D, dated 29th March, 2004, which, ex facie, was copied to the Respondents or their Solicitors. In sum these complaints related to the absence of exhibit A, a letter of abdication; otherwise they related to a slight mix up in the paging and positioning of other exhibits.
This letter was unheeded, for, on the 25th day of June 2007 the Registrar issued his certificate of the applicants’ non compliance with r 15(1) of C.I. 16, the Rules of this Court; returnable on the 17th day of July 2007. The applicants would seem to have been revived from their litigation comma by this notice, for on the 13th day of July 2007 their counsel filed a search as to the fate of the record of appeal. This search is revealing. The very first question thereof runs thus: “(a) Whether or not pursuant to the letter dated 29/3/04 by the Appellants’ Solicitors requesting for the record of proceedings to be corrected as such corrections have been effected (see copy of letter attached).” This search was also ignored.
On the 17th day of July 2007 this court ordered the applicants to file a motion for rectification of the record (apparently holding that that was the appropriate procedure for seeking rectification of a court record). The pursuant motion was to be taken on the 26th day of July 2007. On the return day that motion was dismissed and the court also struck out the applicants’ appeal. Hence the present application for Relistment and Extension of time to file their statement of case.
Jurisdiction to Relist appeal struck out unddr R.15(2) of C.I. 16.
The Respondents contend that this court lacks jurisdiction to relist an appeal that has been struck out for failure to file the appellant’s statement of case as laid down in r. 15(1) of the Rules of this court. In their affidavit in opposition they contend thus:
“3. That the supporting Affidavit of the Applicants have failed to disclose under what princi