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 AppealAllowed· [1999] KECA 45 (KLR)

BANK FUR ARBEIT AND WIRTSCHAFT A.G vs ATTORNEY-GENERAL OFFICIAL RECEIVER,KEN-REN CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LIMITED .. [1999] KECA 45 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
9 December 1999
RKR. O. Kwach
228 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 an extension of time because the earlier delay was caused by the court's own incomplete order, not the applicant.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi delivered by Kwach JA on 9th December 1999, determining a fresh Notice of Motion for extension of time. The applicant had originally moved the Court on 23rd October 1992 for extension of time to file both a Notice of Appeal and a Record of Appeal. The single judge dismissed that application on 22nd September 1994, but on a reference under rule 54 of the Court of Appeal Rules the full Court allowed it on 30th June 1995. However, the full Court's order extended time only for filing the Notice of Appeal and was silent on the Record of Appeal. The appeal subsequently filed was struck out as incompetent on 8th July 1999, prompting the present motion. The court found there was no delay and that neither the applicant nor its advocate could be blamed for what was 'clearly a blunder on the part of the Court'. The application was allowed: time for filing the Notice of Appeal was extended by 14 days from the date of the ruling, and time for filing the Record of Appeal was extended by 60 days from the date of filing the Notice of Appeal. The court made no orders as to costs. The ruling illustrates that where non-compliance stems from an omission or blunder of the Court itself, a blameless applicant should not be penalised, and extension orders must be complete, covering both the Notice and the Record of Appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time where the earlier full Court order was incomplete

Holding

The application was allowed because the delay was attributable to the Court's own omission, not to the applicant or its advocate.

Reasoning

The original motion sought extension of time to file both a Notice of Appeal and a Record of Appeal. It was dismissed by the single judge but allowed on reference by the full Court, which however extended time only for the Notice and said nothing about the Record. The appeal filed pursuant to that order was struck out as incompetent. The court held the applicant blameless for what was a blunder on the part of the Court and granted a fresh, complete extension covering both steps.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an applicant is blameless and the failure to comply stems from a blunder or omission of the Court itself, extension of time should be granted; a court order extending time must be complete and cover both the Notice of Appeal and the Record of Appeal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time for filing the Notice of Appeal by 14 days from the date of the ruling
  2. 2.Extension of time for filing the Record of Appeal by 60 days from the date of filing the Notice of Appeal
  3. 3.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 54
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent extension-of-time jurisdiction under rule 54 of the Court of Appeal Rules (reference jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "BANK FUR ARBEIT AND WIRTSCHAFT A.G vs ATTORNEY-GENERAL OFFICIAL RECEIVER,KEN-REN CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LIMITED .. [1999] KECA 45 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1999). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1999/45/eng@1999-12-09

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