Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedNot stated in judgment· [1998] KECA 221 (KLR)

KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED vs NAPHTALLY J.B. HAWALA [1998] KECA 221 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
15 December 1998
ALA.A. Lakha
163 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal granted extra time to file an appeal where the other side did not object, showing unopposed extension applications are usually successful.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short ex-tempore ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered by Lakha, JA, on 15th December 1998, on a Notice of Motion dated 2nd December 1998 supported by affidavit, in which the applicant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal and the record of appeal. Mr. Okero appeared for the applicant. The judge expressed satisfaction that the case was fit and proper, and that in all the circumstances it was just to exercise the Court's discretion to grant the extension as sought. The application was accordingly granted as prayed: the Notice of Appeal was to be filed within 7 days of the order, and the record of appeal within 15 days thereafter. Costs were ordered to abide the intended appeal. A brief addendum records that later the same morning, at 9:35 a.m., Mr. Ogutu appeared for the respondent's advocates and stated that the application was not opposed, asking for costs; the court confirmed that the order already made and signed stands. No authorities were cited and no separate opinions were written. The decision is a routine discretionary ruling rather than a substantive appellate determination; it does not disturb any decision below and sets out no new binding doctrine beyond the exercise of the extension-of-time discretion in an unopposed application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time to institute an appeal

Holding

The court's discretion to extend time was exercised in the applicant's favour, the application being unopposed and the court satisfied it was fit, proper and just.

Reasoning

The court heard counsel for the applicant and noted that counsel for the respondent did not oppose the application. Satisfied that the case was fit and proper and that extension was just in all the circumstances, the judge granted the application as prayed, fixing timelines of 7 days for the Notice of Appeal and a further 15 days for the record, with costs to abide the appeal.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the respondent does not oppose an extension-of-time application and the court is satisfied the application is fit, proper and just, the court may exercise its discretion to grant the extension sought, with costs abiding the appeal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application granted as prayed
  2. 2.Notice of Appeal to be filed within 7 days from the date of the order
  3. 3.Record of appeal to be filed within 15 days thereafter
  4. 4.Costs to abide the intended appeal
  5. 5.Order already made and signed stands
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion of the Court of Appeal to extend time for filing a Notice of Appeal and record of appeal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED vs NAPHTALLY J.B. HAWALA [1998] KECA 221 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1998). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1998/221/eng@1998-12-15

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.