Gateway Insurance Company Limited v Credit Kenya Limited [2002] KECA 256 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused an urgency application because the applicant gave no evidence showing why the matter was urgent or why the appeal mattered.
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 application was urgent and should be heard on a priority basis
- 2.Whether the intended appeal was arguable and would be rendered nugatory if the application was not heard urgently
Key legal issues
#Whether the application for urgency met the requirements for a priority hearing in the Court of Appeal
The application failed. The applicant showed nothing to demonstrate why or how the application was urgent, and did not show that the intended appeal was arguable or that it would be rendered nugatory if the application was not heard urgently. The grounds set out in the supporting affidavit additionally satisfied the judge that there was no urgency, and the application was refused with costs.
The judge heard the application inter partes and found no material demonstrating urgency. The judgment sought to be appealed had been delivered on 13 October 2000, yet nothing before him showed why or how the application was urgent. He considered whether the intended appeal was arguable and whether it would be rendered nugatory if the application were not heard urgently; neither was demonstrated. Independently, the grounds set out in the supporting affidavit satisfied him that there was no urgency. He therefore refused the application with costs.
Legal principles established
#- A party applying for urgency must place material before the court demonstrating why the application is urgent; a failure to do so is fatal to the application.
- An applicant for urgency must also demonstrate that the intended appeal is arguable and that it will be rendered nugatory if the application is not heard urgently.
Court orders
#- 1.Application refused with costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the ruling
Relief refused
#Certification of the application as urgent and its hearing on a priority basis
The applicant placed nothing before the court to show why or how the application was urgent, and did not demonstrate that the intended appeal was arguable or that it would be rendered nugatory if the application was not heard urgently; the grounds set out in the supporting affidavit additionally satisfied the judge that there was no urgency.
Costs
Application refused with 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.
Application refused with costs.
I have heard nothing to show why or how this application is urgent.
I have not been shown that the appeal is arguable or that it will be rendered nugatory if this application is not heard urgently.
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling does not state the case title, case number, neutral citation, or the names of the parties; these fields could not be populated from the document.
The court and case number of the judgment intended to be appealed against are not identified; only its delivery date is given.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gateway Insurance Company Limited v Credit Kenya Limited [2002] KECA 256 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Not stated in the ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/256/eng@2002-08-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.