PETER HANDERSON & ANOTHER
V.
RICHARD BELL & ANOTHER

RULING OF THE COURT

Before us is a Notice of Motion stated to have been filed under rule 83 of the this Court’s Rules in which the applicants, Peter Handerson and James David Robinson, seek orders:-

“1. THAT the 1^st Respondent’s Notice of Appeal dated 13^th February, 2014 and filed on 14^th February, 2014 be deemed to have been withdrawn.

2. THAT costs of this application be provided for.”

The application which is supported by the affidavit of Kenneth Kiplagat is brought on the main ground that since the filing of the Notice of Appeal by the 1^st respondent, the time for lodging such an appeal has lapsed.

When the application came up for hearing before us on 8^th July, 2015 Mr. Kiplagat, the learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that since the filing of the subject Notice of Appeal the sixty (60) days allowed by the Rules for filing appeal have since lapsed. Yet no appeal has been filed. Learned counsel also contended that the 1^st respondent did not apply for a copy of proceedings in t…