Vulcan Lab Equipment Ltd v Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission & another
The bottom line
#Supreme Court dismisses case because printed copy was filed two years after electronic copy.
What this practically means
#Vulcan Lab Equipment Ltd filed a review application in the Supreme Court. They submitted the electronic copy on time but only filed the printed copy nearly two years later. The Supreme Court ruled that filing requires both electronic and printed copies to be submitted at the same time. Because the printed copy was late, the application was not properly filed and was dismissed. An attempt to amend the application also failed. The court did not address the legal questions because the procedural error was fatal. The company must pay the costs of the other parties.
Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the originating motion was properly filed when the electronic copy was filed on time but the printed copy was filed almost two years later
The originating motion was not properly filed because the printed copy was not filed simultaneously with the electronic copy, violating rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules.
The court noted that rule 12(1) requires pleadings to be filed in both printed and electronic form, and rule 12(3) provides that in case of inconsistency, the hard copy prevails. The court cited its earlier decision in Kenya Hotel Properties Limited v Attorney General & 5 others, where it held that filing is complete only when both forms are submitted. The applicant filed the electronic copy on April 30, 2021 (the last day for review) but only presented the printed copy on June 7, 2023, a delay of 1 year and 11 months without explanation. Consequently, the originating motion was deemed not properly filed and was dismissed.
Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend the originating motion
The application for leave to amend was dismissed as it had no basis once the originating motion was found not properly filed.
The court reasoned that since the originating motion itself was not properly before the court due to non-compliance with filing rules, the application to amend it could not stand independently. The court described it as having 'no leg to stand on.' The applicant had also not explained the inordinate delay in filing the printed copy.
Legal principles established
#- Filing in the Supreme Court requires simultaneous submission of electronic and printed copies; filing is incomplete otherwise.
- The printed copy must match the electronic copy and be filed at the same time.
- If the main application is not properly filed, any application to amend it has no legal basis.
- An unexplained delay of nearly two years in filing the printed copy is fatal to the case.
- The court will not consider substantive legal questions if the procedural defect is not cured.
Court orders
#- 1.The originating motion dated April 30, 2021 and filed on June 7, 2023 be and is hereby dismissed
- 2.The notice of motion dated April 13, 2023 and filed on June 7, 2023 be and is hereby dismissed
- 3.The applicant shall bear the 1st and 2nd respondents' costs
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya
- Nairobi Civil Application No Sup 12 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Strict compliance with Supreme Court filing rules
Lawyers must ensure that all pleadings in the Supreme Court are filed with both electronic and printed copies simultaneously. Filing is only complete when both are submitted. A delay in filing the printed copy, even if the electronic copy was timely, renders the filing improper and can lead to dismissal. Any application to amend will not salvage the case if the main application is not properly before the court.
Procedural deadlines are strictly enforced
Businesses involved in Supreme Court litigation must ensure their legal teams comply with all filing requirements. This case shows that even a procedural mistake like filing the printed copy late can result in the entire case being dismissed without consideration of the merits. Businesses should instruct their lawyers to confirm that both electronic and printed copies are filed at the same time to avoid costly delays.
Follow court filing rules carefully
If you are taking a case to the Supreme Court, you must file both an electronic copy and a printed copy at the same time. Filing one without the other is not enough. This case shows that even if you file the electronic version on time, if the printed copy is late, your case can be thrown out. Make sure your lawyer handles this correctly to avoid losing your case on a technicality.
Frequently asked questions
#What are the filing requirements for the Supreme Court of Kenya?+
In the Supreme Court of Kenya, you must file both an electronic copy and a printed copy of your pleadings at the same time. Filing is only complete when both are submitted simultaneously. The printed copy must match the electronic copy. Failure to do so can result in dismissal.
Can I file only an electronic copy in the Supreme Court of Kenya?+
No. The Supreme Court of Kenya requires both electronic and printed copies to be filed simultaneously. Filing only an electronic copy is not sufficient. The court has held that filing is complete only when both forms are submitted together.
What happens if I file the printed copy late in the Supreme Court of Kenya?+
If you file the printed copy after the deadline, your case may be dismissed. In Vulcan Lab Equipment Ltd v EACC, the court dismissed the case because the printed copy was filed nearly two years after the electronic copy, with no explanation for the delay.
Why was the Vulcan Lab Equipment case dismissed by the Supreme Court of Kenya?+
The case was dismissed because the company filed the electronic copy on time but only submitted the printed copy almost two years later. The Supreme Court ruled that filing requires both copies at the same time. The procedural mistake was fatal, so the court did not consider the legal issues.
Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Olela v Maasai Bars & Restaurants Limited (Cause 78 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 477 (KLR)[2026] KEMC 477 (KLR)30 Jul 2026distinguished
- TIBLESTE TECLEMARIAM v HIDAT TECLE ANDEMARIAM[2024] KEELC 919 (KLR)22 Feb 2024applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Vulcan Lab Equipment Ltd v Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission & another", Case Analysis (2023). Civil Application E012 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2023/70/eng@2023-09-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.