[2006] KECA 280 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to extend time for filing an appeal in the High Court, as such power is vested in the High Court itself. The applicant's reliance on rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is misplaced because that rule only empowers the Court of Appeal to extend time for matters within its own...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KECA 280 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Brooke Bond Kenya Limited; Respondent: James Nyabiosi
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 339 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal in the High Court
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appellate Jurisdiction, Court Discretion
- 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
Brooke Bond Kenya Limited
Applicant
James Nyabiosi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal in the High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to extend time for filing an appeal in the High Court.
- 2 Whether the applicant's motion under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is competent.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to extend time for filing an appeal in the High Court, as such power is vested in the High Court itself. The applicant's reliance on rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is misplaced because that rule only empowers the Court of Appeal to extend time for matters within its own jurisdiction, not for appeals to the High Court. The cited authority, Fakir Mohamed v. Joseph Mugambi & Others, is inapplicable as it concerned extension of time for lodging an appeal in the Court of Appeal, not the High Court. Since the respondent did not oppose the motion and the application is fundamentally incompetent, the motion is dismissed without an order as to costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The motion for extension of time to file an appeal in the High Court is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT KISUMU CIVIL APPLICATION 339 OF 2005
BROOKE BOND KENYA LIMITED ……..........……………………… APPLICANT
AND
JAMES NYABIOSI ………………………......……………………….. RESPONDENT
(Application for extension of time to file an appeal in the High Court out of time from the judgment of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kisii (Mr. Soita, P.M) dated 28th April, 2004
in
Chief Magistrate’s Court Civil Case No. 251 of 1998)
*****************
R U L I N G
This is a strange application in which I am being asked to exercise the discretion of the Court conferred by rule 4 to extend time so as to enable the applicant to file an appeal, not in this Court, but in the High Court. The High Court itself has the power to extend time to enable parties such as the applicant, file appeals in that court. It is not alleged that the High Court has refused to exercise its power to extend time but even if it had refused to do so, the applicant’s remedy would not be under rule 4 of the Court’s Rules, but by way of an appeal from the order of the High Court refusing to extend time – assuming of course that there is a right of appeal from such an order or in the absence of a right of appeal, leave to appeal being sought and granted. Decisions such as FAKIR MOHAMED V. JOSEPH MUGAMBI & OTHERS – Civil Application No. Nai. 332 of 2004 on which Mrs. Otieno, learned counsel for the applicant, purports to rely has got absolutely nothing to do with this type of application. That was an application to extend time for lodging the record of appeal in this Court not in the High Court.
With the greatest respect to Mrs. Otieno, the motion before me does not and cannot lie and I order that it be and is hereby dismissed. I however make no order as to the costs of the motion seeing that the respondent made no answer to the motion and I have not even found it necessary to call upon Miss Obaga to address me.
Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 30th day of March, 2006.
R.S.C OMOLO
………………………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR