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. 112 of 1999

GUILDERS INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD vs CHIMANLAL HILJI SHAH & 20 OTHERS [2000] KECA 395 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
9 February 2000
203 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

#

Guilders International Bank's appeal was struck out for missing Kenya's 60-day filing deadline, leaving the High Court's decision intact and the bank paying legal costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This short ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Kwach, Bosire and Keiwua JJ.A) dealt with Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1999 brought by Guilders International Bank Ltd against Chimanlal Hilji Shah & 19 Others and Carnation Apartments Limited. The appeal lay from a ruling of the High Court (Justice M. Ole Keiwua) dated 5th February 1999 in H.C.C.C. No. 343 of 1998. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 17th February 1999, but the record of appeal was not lodged until 4th June 1999, well outside the 60 days permitted and without leave. The court held that the appeal was consequently incompetent, a position conceded by Mr Omolo for the appellant. The court struck out the appeal and awarded the respondents the costs of both the application dated 17th September 1999 and the appeal. The ruling does not disturb the High Court's decision, which therefore stands unaffected; the disposition is procedural, turning on the competency of the appeal rather than the merits. The judgment cites no authorities and no statutes, and is delivered as a single ruling of the whole court.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether an appeal whose record was lodged out of the permitted 60 days and without leave is competent

Key legal issues

#
01

Competency of an appeal filed out of time without leave

Holding

The appeal was incompetent because the record of appeal was lodged well beyond the 60-day period and without leave; the appeal was struck out with costs

Reasoning

The decision appealed against was delivered on 5th February 1999 and notice of appeal was filed on 17th February 1999, but the record of appeal was not lodged until 4th June 1999, outside the 60 days permitted and without any extension of time. Counsel for the appellant conceded the incompetence, leaving the court with no option but to strike out the appeal with costs of both the application and the appeal.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal whose record is not lodged within the 60 days permitted, and without leave, is incompetent and liable to be struck out

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is struck out with costs of both the application dated 17th September, 1999 and the appeal

The bench

#

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

majority

Wrote the judgment

majority

Wrote the judgment

majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C.C.C. No. 343 of 1998
Jurisdiction invoked
Appeal to the Court of Appeal under the applicable appellate procedure; the record of appeal was required to be lodged within 60 days of the decision appealed against or with leave

Relief refused

#

The appellant's appeal (and the application dated 17th September, 1999)

The record of appeal was filed out of the 60-day period without leave, rendering the appeal incompetent; counsel conceded this

p. 1

Costs

The appeal is ordered struck out with costs both of the application dated 17th September, 1999 and the appeal

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 record of appeal was not lodged in court until 4th June 1999; well out of the 60 days permitted for doing so and without leave. Consequently the appeal is incompetent.
p. 1Incompetence of appeal filed out of time without leave
the appeal is ordered struck out with costs both of the application dated 17th September, 1999 and the appeal.
p. 1Final orders - striking out and costs

Issues in the judgment

#
material

The coram lists 'KWACH, BOSIRE & OWUOR JJ.A' but the judgment is signed by R.O. KWACH, S.E.O. BOSIRE and M. KEIWUA; the third judge is rendered inconsistently (Owuor vs Keiwua), and Keiwua is also named as the High Court judge whose ruling was appealed from

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "GUILDERS INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD vs CHIMANLAL HILJI SHAH & 20 OTHERS [2000] KECA 395 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2000). Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1999. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/395/eng@2000-02-09

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