Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Company v Capture Solutions Limited
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed Nairobi Water's third attempt to revive an appeal, ruling repeat applications for the same relief abuse the court process.
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 applicant should be granted an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal from the decision of Majanja J dated 27 August 2020
- 2.Whether the application is an abuse of court process given prior dismissals of similar applications
Key legal issues
#Whether the motion was an abuse of court process
Yes. The identical relief (extension of time/leave to appeal against the ruling of 27 August 2020) had already been sought and dismissed twice - by Ouko JA as a Single Judge on 23 April 2021 and by M'inoti, Mohammed & Kantai JJ.A on 4 March 2022.
The court found it undisputed that the applicant had previously moved the Court twice for the same relief against the same orders, and both applications were dismissed for want of merit. The prior ruling had expressly noted the applicant had reached a dead end on extension of time under rule 4. Renewing the application wasted judicial time and constituted a gross abuse of process, warranting dismissal with costs.
Legal principles established
#- A party cannot re-litigate before the Court of Appeal an application for extension of time or leave to appeal that has already been dismissed by a Single Judge and a three-Judge bench of the same Court; doing so is an abuse of process.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's motion dated April 25, 2022 is dismissed in its entirety with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Milimani Commercial & Tax Division
- Misc Application No. E679 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 159(d), 164(3), 201(d), 227, 259 of the Constitution; Sections 2, 3A, 3B Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Rules 4, 39(b), 47 Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file application for leave to appeal
Application was a gross abuse of court process, the same relief having been dismissed previously by a Single Judge and a three-Judge bench
Priority hearing of the ensuing leave application before Civil Appeal No. E514 of 2020
Moot upon dismissal of the motion
Costs
Dismissed in its entirety with costs to the respondent
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.
From the circumstances of this case, the applicant's application as filed is certainly a gross abuse of the court process and a waste of the Court's precious judicial time
the applicant can now not be heard to make the same application that was previously dismissed by a Single Judge and a 3 Judge Bench of this Court
Accordingly, the applicant's motion dated April 25, 2022, is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed in its entirety with costs to the respondent.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Company v Capture Solutions Limited", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Application E136 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/1213/eng@2022-11-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.