Concord Insurance Company Limited v David Otieno Alinyo & Joash Otweli Alinyo [2001] KECA 18 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to record a settlement agreement the parties never actually reached, sending the insurance dispute back for a full hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the parties had reached a consent order disposing of the application to strike out the Notice of Appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the application to strike out the Notice of Appeal could be disposed of by a consent order
No. The notice had been placed before the court because it was thought the parties would record an order of consent, but no consent existed. The court made no substantive ruling on the striking-out application and instead directed that the matter be fixed for hearing in the ordinary way.
The court gave no reasons beyond recording that the notice had been put before it on the expectation of a consent order. Since no consent had in fact been reached between the applicant and the legal representatives of the deceased, there was nothing to record. The only course open was to direct that the application be listed for hearing in the ordinary way. The court expressed no view on the merits of the striking-out application or on the intended appeal against the High Court judgment.
Legal principles established
#- Where no consent has in fact been reached between the parties, the Court of Appeal will not record a consent order disposing of an application; the application must instead be fixed for hearing in the ordinary way.
Court orders
#- 1.No consent order was recorded, there being no consent between the parties.
- 2.The application to strike out the Notice of Appeal to be fixed for hearing in the ordinary way.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
- HCCC No. 110 of 1990
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the judgment; the order invokes no constitutional or statutory provision.
Relief refused
#Recording of a consent order disposing of the application to strike out the Notice of Appeal
The matter had been listed in the expectation that the parties would record an order of consent, but no such consent existed, so there was nothing to record.
Costs
No order as to costs was made; the order is silent on costs.
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.
It appears this notice was put before us because it was thought the parties would record an order of consent.
There is no such consent and we order that the matter be fixed for hearing in the ordinary way.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Concord Insurance Company Limited v David Otieno Alinyo & Joash Otweli Alinyo [2001] KECA 18 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Civil Appli 220 of 2000. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/18/eng@2001-11-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.