Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealStruck OutCivil Appeal No. 235 of 1999

Samvir Trustees Limited v Guardian Bank Limited [2000] KECA 356 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
12 October 2000
173 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 struck out an appeal filed late without permission and missing a key document, confirming such appeals are dead on arrival.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This brief ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Gicheru, Omolo and Shah JJ.A.) disposed of Civil Appeal No. 235 of 1999, in which Samvir Trustees Limited appealed against a ruling of the High Court (Oguk J) dated 8 July 1999 in H.C.S.C. No. 795 of 1997. The matter came before the appellate court by way of a motion by the respondent, Guardian Bank Limited, raising two points: that the appeal had been filed out of time without leave, and that an essential document had been omitted from the record of appeal. Counsel for the respondent, Mr Billing, conceded both points. On those concessions the court held the appeal incompetent, struck it out with costs, and awarded the costs of the motion to the applicant (respondent). The judgment is a single ruling of the whole court with no separate opinions and no dissent. It contains no citation of authorities or statutory provisions, and no discussion of the merits of the underlying dispute; its significance lies in the confirmation that an appeal instituted out of time without leave, or with an essential document missing from the record, is incompetent and liable to be struck out, with costs following that outcome.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether an appeal filed out of time without leave is competent
  2. 2.Whether the omission of an essential document from the record of appeal renders the appeal incompetent

Key legal issues

#
01

Competence of an appeal filed out of time without leave and with an incomplete record

Holding

The appeal was incompetent and was struck out

Reasoning

Counsel for the respondent conceded the two defects raised in the motion: the appeal was instituted out of time without the requisite leave, and an essential document was left out of the record of appeal. On those concessions, the court found the appeal incompetent and struck it out with costs, also awarding the costs of the motion to the applicant.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal filed out of time without leave, and with an essential document omitted from the record of appeal, is incompetent and liable to be struck out.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is struck out
  2. 2.The appeal is struck out with costs
  3. 3.The costs of the motion are awarded to the applicant (respondent)

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority
majority
majority
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C.S.C. No. 795 of 1997
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under the Constitution and the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (not expressly stated in the ruling)

Relief refused

#

Continuation of the appeal

The appeal was filed out of time without leave and an essential document was omitted from the record, rendering it incompetent

p. 2

Costs

The appeal is struck out with costs, and the costs of the motion are awarded to the applicant (respondent).

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

the appeal was filed out of time without leave and that an essential document has been left out of the record of appeal
p. 2Defects rendering an appeal incompetent
That being so, the appeal is incompetent and we order that it be and is hereby struck out with costs. We award the costs of the motion to the applicant.
p. 2Final orders - striking out and costs

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samvir Trustees Limited v Guardian Bank Limited [2000] KECA 356 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2000). Civil Appeal No. 235 of 1999. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/356/eng@2000-10-12

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