Assa Okwemba Onyango v Omar Transmotors Limited & another [2002] KECA 107 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal postponed a bid to strike out a Notice of Appeal until it first decided whether the appeal could be filed late.
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 Notice of Appeal filed against the High Court judgment in H.C.C.C. No. 137 of 1998 should be struck out (the question raised by the application; not determined, as the application was adjourned).
- 2.Whether the application should be adjourned pending the disposal of Civil Application No. 62 of 2002, which seeks leave to file the appeal out of time.
Key legal issues
#Sequencing of an application to strike out a Notice of Appeal against a pending application for leave to appeal out of time
The Court adjourned the strike-out application to await the disposal of Civil Application No. 62 of 2002, because the outcome of the leave application, whichever way it went, would have an effect on the strike-out application.
The Court gave a single-sentence reason: the outcome of the pending leave application, whichever way it went, would affect the strike-out application, so the leave application should be disposed of first. The adjournment was sought by respondents' counsel and the Court, in its case-management discretion, agreed. The ruling does not elaborate on the direction of that effect, cites no authority, and decides no substantive question about the Notice of Appeal. It is an interlocutory procedural direction, not a ratio decidendi, and lays down no rule on the merits of striking out notices of appeal.
Legal principles established
#Court orders
#- 1.Adjournment of the application granted as sought by respondents' counsel, to enable the Court to dispose of Civil Application No. 62 of 2002 first.
- 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. 137 of 1998
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the ruling; no constitutional or statutory provision is cited. The application arises in the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction in respect of a contemplated appeal from the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (H.C.C.C. No. 137 of 1998).
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 has been brought to our attention that pending before this Court is Civil Application No. 62 of 2002 which seeks leave to file appeal out of time.
We think that it is appropriate in the circumstances to grant adjournment as sought by counsel by the respondents to enable the Court to dispose of that matter first.
The outcome of that application, whichever way, no doubt will have effect on this application.
We make no order as to costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Assa Okwemba Onyango v Omar Transmotors Limited & another [2002] KECA 107 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Civil Application No. NAI. 63 of 2002. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/107/eng@2002-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.