Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited v Rono Limited [2001] KECA 144 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Caltex withdrew its late-appeal application before the Court of Appeal decided it, and each side walked away bearing its own costs.
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 reference (the application for extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal and the Record of Appeal) should stand withdrawn upon the applicant's informal application, the respondent not objecting
- 2.What order as to costs should be made upon the withdrawal
Key legal issues
#Whether the reference could be withdrawn by the applicant's informal application without objection
Yes - upon the applicant's informal application to withdraw, unopposed by the respondent, the reference stands withdrawn and the extension-of-time application is disposed of without any determination of its merits.
The ruling records that Mr. Muthoga made an informal application to withdraw the reference and that Mr. Esmail for the respondent did not object. With both sides aligned, the court needed no formal hearing or argument and simply recorded the withdrawal, ending the extension-of-time application without any determination of its merits. The withdrawal was consensual in effect, since the respondent expressly raised no objection, and the court treated the informal application as sufficient to dispose of the reference.
What order as to costs should follow the withdrawal
No order as to costs; costs are always at the discretion of the court, and the court exercised that discretion by making no order on the unopposed withdrawal.
The court stated that costs are always at its discretion and, on the facts of an unopposed withdrawal before any hearing on the extension application, chose to make no order as to costs. The practical effect is that each party bears its own costs of the withdrawn application. The statement reaffirms that no party is automatically entitled to costs on a withdrawal and that the outcome depends on the court's assessment of the circumstances.
Legal principles established
#- Costs in the Court of Appeal are always at the discretion of the court.
Court orders
#- 1.The reference stands withdrawn.
- 2.No order as to costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. No. 1388 of 1992
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the ruling; the matter was a procedural application (reference) in the Court of Appeal seeking extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal and the Record of Appeal.
Relief refused
#Extension of time within which to file the Notice of Appeal and the Record of Appeal in the intended appeal
Not granted on the merits: before any determination, the applicant's counsel informally applied to withdraw the reference and the respondent did not object, so the court made no ruling on the extension itself.
Costs
No order as to 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.
Upon Mr. Muthoga's informal application to withdraw this reference and Mr Esmail for the respondent not objecting the reference stands withdrawn.
As to costs there are always at the discretion of the Court. The order that commends itself to us that we make as we hereby do no order as to costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited v Rono Limited [2001] KECA 144 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Civil Application No. NAI. 106 of 2000 (UR.51/2000). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/144/eng@2001-11-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.