[2025] KECA 1050 (KLR)
The court found that the application was fatally defective because it was premised on a non-existent rule (Rule 57(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules) and contained inconsistencies in the supporting affidavit regarding which party was awarded costs. Rather than dismissing the application on its merits, the court struck...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KECA 1050 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: The Kenya Alliance Insurance Company Limited; Respondent: Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU); Respondent: Jubilee Insurance Company Limited; Respondent: Registered Trustees of Multimedia University College of Pensions Scheme; Respondent: Retirements Benefits Authority
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal (Application) E037 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome
- application struck out for being fatally defective
- Judges
- W Karanja
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Stay of Proceedings, Procedural Defects
- 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
The Kenya Alliance Insurance Company Limited
Applicant
Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU)
Respondent
Jubilee Insurance Company Limited
Respondent
Registered Trustees of Multimedia University College of Pensions Scheme
Respondent
Retirements Benefits Authority
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for extension of time and stay of proceedings was properly grounded under the relevant rules and statutes.
- 2 Whether the application was fatally defective due to reliance on a non-existent rule and inconsistencies in the supporting affidavit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was fatally defective because it was premised on a non-existent rule (Rule 57(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules) and contained inconsistencies in the supporting affidavit regarding which party was awarded costs. Rather than dismissing the application on its merits, the court struck it out for these procedural defects. The court made no order as to costs, noting that the 1st respondent did not raise the procedural issues in their replying affidavit.
Court Disposition
application struck out for being fatally defective
Orders
- The application is struck out for being fatally defective.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Kenya Alliance Insurance Company Limited v Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) & 3 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E037 of 2021) [2025] KECA 1050 (KLR) (11 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KECA 1050 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Civil Appeal (Application) E037 of 2021
W Karanja, JA
June 11, 2025
Between
The Kenya Alliance Insurance Company Limited
Applicant
and
Universities Academic Staff Union (Uasu)
1st Respondent
Jubilee Insurance Company Limited
2nd Respondent
Registered Trustees of Multimedia University College of Pensions SchemePensions Scheme
3rd Respondent
Retirements Benefits Authority
4th Respondent
(Being an appeal from the Ruling and Order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Sergon, J.) dated 27th November 2020inHCCC No. E103 of 2020 Civil Suit E103 of 2020 )
Ruling
1. The notice of motion before me is expressed to be premised on Rule 57(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, section 3A, 3 and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Article 164(3)(a). There is no Rule 57(4) in the Court of Appeal Rules.
2. The applicant seeks extension of time to file a refence against the decision of Mumbi Ngugi (J.A.) sitting as a single Judge. In the same application, the applicant’s prayers is for stay of proceedings.
3. I note that although Judge Mumbi’s order awarded costs to the 1st respondent, the affidavit sworn in support of the application by Linda Njenga, the Legal Manager of the applicant talks of the 3rd respondent as the party that was awarded costs. Rather than dismiss the application on its merit, I strike it out for being fatally defective, with no order as to costs, as the 1st respondent did not raise the said issues in the replying affidavit.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2025. W. KARANJA...........................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.SIGNEDDEPUTY REGISTRAR