Ukay Estates Limited & another v Shah Hirji Manek Ltd. & 2 others [2001] KECA 244 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to hear an extension-of-time appeal application because the applicants failed to include the pleadings and judgment in the record.
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 applicants' application for extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal could be heard where neither the pleadings nor the judgment sought to be appealed against had been included in the record
Key legal issues
#Duty of an applicant on an extension-of-time application to supply a complete record
The court declined to hear the application because the pleadings and the ruling sought to be appealed were absent from the record, standing the application over generally.
The single judge in chambers held that he could not properly evaluate an application for extension of time to lodge a Notice of Appeal without the pleadings and the decision intended to be appealed. In the absence of those documents the application was not heard on its merits; it was removed from the list and stood over generally, with costs of the day awarded to the respondents.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant seeking extension of time to appeal must place before the court the pleadings and the judgment or ruling sought to be appealed against; the application cannot be heard on an incomplete record.
Court orders
#- 1.The application was taken out of the list for the day and stood over generally
- 2.Today's costs assessed at Shs. 8,000/- to the respondents, payable within 7 days, and in default execution to issue
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. No. 883 of 1998
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent/appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Court of Appeal Rules (application for extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal)
Relief refused
#Immediate hearing of the extension-of-time application
The record was incomplete - neither the pleadings nor the judgment sought to be appealed against had been supplied
Costs
Today's costs assessed at Shs. 8,000/- to the respondents to be paid within 7 days and in default execution to issue.
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.
As neither the pleadings nor the judgment sought to be appealed against has been made part of the record I cannot hear this application.
Accordingly it is taken out of the list for today and stood over generally.
Today's costs assessed at Shs. 8,000/- to the respondents to be paid within 7 days and in default execution to issue.
Issues in the judgment
#The document is a brief chambers order, not a full reasoned judgment; it does not state the second applicant's name, the neutral citation, or the statutory basis of jurisdiction, and records no decision on the merits of the extension-of-time application.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ukay Estates Limited & another v Shah Hirji Manek Ltd. & 2 others [2001] KECA 244 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Civil Application No. Nai. 371 of 2000 (UR. 181/2000). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/244/eng@2001-01-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.