[2002] KECA 178 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant's delay of 686 days in seeking extension of time to file the notice and record of appeal was inordinate and unexplained. The court emphasized that while justice may require that parties be heard on appeal, it equally demands compliance with the rules of court. The applicant's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KECA 178 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: African Airlines International Limited; Respondent: The Eastern & Southern African Trade & Development Bank (The PTA Bank)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 50 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- JE Gicheru
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Court Rules Compliance
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
African Airlines International Limited
Applicant
The Eastern & Southern African Trade & Development Bank (The PTA Bank)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient justification for the extension of time to file the notice and record of appeal.
- 2 Whether the delay of 686 days in seeking extension of time is excusable under the rules of the Court of Appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant's delay of 686 days in seeking extension of time to file the notice and record of appeal was inordinate and unexplained. The court emphasized that while justice may require that parties be heard on appeal, it equally demands compliance with the rules of court. The applicant's conduct amounted to gross flouting of the relevant procedural rules, and the court found no justification to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. Consequently, the application for extension of time was dismissed as unmeritorious.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for extension of time is dismissed.
- The applicant shall pay the costs of the application to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: GICHERU, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 50 OF 2002 (UR.29/2002)
BETWEEN
AFRICAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED...............................APPLICANT
AND
THE EASTERN & SOUTHERN AFRICAN
TRADE &DEVELOPMENtBANK(THE PTABANK).........................RESPONDENT
(An application for extension of time to file Notice of
Appeal and Record of Appeal in an intended appeal from
the Ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Milimani (Hewett,
Comm. of Assize dated 20th April, 2000
in
H.C.C.C. NO. 1361 OF 1999)
*********************
R U L I N G
In this application, the applicant's intended appeal arises from the order of the superior court purported to have been given on 20th April, 2000. That order was the subject of a review and injunction application under sections 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders XXXIX(1) and XLIV of the Civil Procedure Rules dated 17th July, 2000 which was not heard on merit for the reason that the said order was not formally extracted consequent to which the review and injunction application was on 23rd January, 2001 dismissed
with costs with leave to appeal being refused. That application had been made 88 days from the date of the order the subject-matter of the review and injunction application. The applicant's Notice of Appeal in respect of the same order was lodged on 15th February, 2002 - 666 days from the date of the said order. The present application was made on 7th March, 2002 - 686 days from the date of the order intended to be appealed from - seeking:
1. Extension of time within which to apply for copies of the proceedings so that the applicant's letter dated 22nd January, 2002 and received in the superior court on 23rd day of the same month be deemed to have been duly lodged for that purpose within the extended time.
2. Extension of time to lodge and serve the Notice of Appeal against the order of the superior court dated 20th April, 2000.
3. Extension of time to lodge and serve the record of appeal.
4. That the Notice of Appeal lodged on 15th February, 2002 be deemed to have been lodged within the extended time.
At the hearing of this application on 23rd April, 2002 the force of the submission of counsel for the applicant was that from the nature of the applicant's intended appeal, the dictates of justice calls for the extension of time sought to be granted so that the applicant may seek redress in the highest court in the land. But without delving any further into this matter, let me say that the dictates of justice also calls for compliance with the rules of this Court. The ends of justice is not a talisman even where there is gross flouting of the relevant rule (s) of the Court as in the present application where the dilatoriness as is set out above shrieks against the exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant underrule 4of the Rules of this Court. Without saying any more than that, I consider the applicant's application unmeritorious and the same is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 3rd day of June, 2002.
J.E. GICHERU
..............
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR