[2024] KECA 955 (KLR)
The Court held that while the application was not ambiguous, it was omnibus in nature, combining prayers for leave to appeal and extension of time. Under Rule 53 of the Court of Appeal Rules, a single judge lacks jurisdiction to determine an application for leave to appeal, which must be heard by a full bench....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KECA 955 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited; Applicant: Joseph M Gikonyo t/a Garam Investments; Respondent: Kenya Farmers Association Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application E047 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Single Judge Ruling on Application for Leave and Extension of Time to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application referred to a full bench for determination of the prayer for leave to appeal.
- Judges
- JW Lessit
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Court Jurisdiction, Omnibus Applications
- 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
Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited
Applicant
Joseph M Gikonyo t/a Garam Investments
Applicant
Kenya Farmers Association Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Single Judge Ruling on Application for Leave and Extension of Time to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to leave to appeal against the ruling of the Environment and Land Court.
- 2 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant extension of time to file the record of appeal before leave to appeal is granted.
- 3 Whether an omnibus application seeking both leave to appeal and extension of time is procedurally proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that while the application was not ambiguous, it was omnibus in nature, combining prayers for leave to appeal and extension of time. Under Rule 53 of the Court of Appeal Rules, a single judge lacks jurisdiction to determine an application for leave to appeal, which must be heard by a full bench. Furthermore, the prayer for extension of time to file the record of appeal is premature because there is no appeal before the Court until leave is granted. Rather than striking out the application on technical grounds, the Court exercised its discretion in line with Article 159(2) of the Constitution to avoid undue technicalities and directed that the application be placed before a...
Court Disposition
Application referred to a full bench for determination of the prayer for leave to appeal.
Orders
- The application is to be placed before a full bench of the Court of Appeal for determination of the prayer for leave to appeal the decision of the superior court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited & another v Kenya Farmers Association Limited (Civil Application E047 of 2024) [2024] KECA 955 (KLR) (26 July 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KECA 955 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru
Civil Application E047 of 2024
JW Lessit, JA
July 26, 2024
Between
Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited
1st Applicant
Joseph M Gikonyo t/a Garam Investments
2nd Applicant
and
Kenya Farmers Association Limited
Respondent
(Being an application for leave and extension of time to appeal from the Ruling and Order of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (Mwangi, J.) delivered on 8th March 2023 in ELC No. 228 of 2015 (Now HCCC No. 6 of 2023. )
Ruling
1. Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited and Joseph M. Gikonyo T/A Garam Investments have brought this application dated 1st May 2024 pursuant to, inter alia, Rules 41 (1)(b) (ii), 44 (2), 45(3) and 77(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules. They seek:i.That this Court be pleased to grant leave to the applicants to appeal against the ruling of the Environment and Land Court, (ELC) (Mwangi, J.) delivered on 8th March 2023; and,ii.That the time for filing of the record be extended to within 14 days of the grant of leave to appeal.
2. I note that the applicant has fled an omnibus application seeking two orders. Order one seeks leave to appeal against the ruling of the Environment and Land Court, which can only be heard by a full bench of this Court. The second order sought of extension of time to file record of appeal is befitting a single judge of the Court.
3. Rule 53 of the Court of Appeal Rules provides:“(1)Every application, other than an application included in sub-rule (2), shall be heard by a single judge:Provided that any such application may be adjourned by the judge for determination by the Court. 2. This rule shall not apply to -a.an application for leave to appeal;b.an application for a stay of execution, injunction, or stay of further proceedings;c.an application to strike out a notice of appeal or an appeal; ord.an application made as ancillary to an application under paragraph (a) or (b) or made informally in the course of a hearing.”
4. In the Supreme Court case of Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya vs. Kenya Airways Limited & 3 Others [2015] eKLR the Court considered an omnibus application and had the following to say:“[20]We have noted that the applicant has cited Sections of the Supreme Court Act and Rules which are applicable when one seeks leave, and grant of certification. In Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v. Giovanni Gnecchi Ruscone, Sup. Ct. Application 2 of 2012, this Court stated [paragraph 23]:“… It is trite law that a Court of law has to be moved under the correct provisions of the law.”A party who moves the Court, has to cite the specific provision(s) of the law that clothes the Court with the jurisdiction invoked. It is improper for a party in its pleadings, to make ‘omnibus’ applications, with ambiguous prayers, hoping that the Court will grant at least some.”
5. The application before me is not ambiguous but it is omnibus. While I would have had no problem dealing with the prayer for extension of time under Rule 4 for which I have jurisdiction to do, it is premature to deal with it at this stage. The reason being there is no appeal before the Court, as the applicant did not have an automatic right of appeal to this Court. In my view, he has to obtain that leave first and then seek extension of time. Instead of striking out the application on the technicality highlighted above, and in order to save the applicant time and grant him access to justice without delay or saddling him with technicalities contrary to the spirit prescribed under Article 159(2) of the Constitution, I will save it for consideration by a full bench.
6. In the result, I direct that the application be placed before a full bench of this Court for determination of the prayer for leave to appeal the decision of the superior court.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024. J. LESIIT...................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.SignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR.