RULING
When this appeal was called on for hearing, Mr Kwach, appearing on behalf of the two respondents, took the preliminary objection that the mandatory provisions of Rule 85 (1) (f) of rules of this court had not been complied with, in that none of the exhibits which were before the High Court, and which he classified into five categories, had been included in the Record of the Appeal. Whether or not all those documentary exhibits are needed for the proper determination of the appeal was not, Mr Kwach said, material to this issue because the provisions are mandatory and failure to comply with them must result in the appeal being struck out. However, we observe that at least two of those classes of documents would appear to be necessary before a proper conclusion could be reached on the appeal against the award to Olive Lubia, who is the second respondent.
Mr Barasa submitted on behalf of the appellants that the application had not been made formally, and that before taking the drasti…