Attorney General on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government v Nguruman Limited
The bottom line
#Court let part of the government's late filing stand but struck out a second response filed without permission.
What this practically means
#The Attorney General asked the Supreme Court to fix a late response to a cross appeal. The Court said a mixed application is not automatically thrown out; it can split the requests and keep the valid part. The government got leave to amend its first response within seven days. A second response filed late without leave was struck out as invalid. Costs will follow the final appeal result.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the omnibus motion is fatally defective and should be struck out
- 2.Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time or leave to amend its response to the cross appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether an omnibus motion is fatally defective and should be struck out
An omnibus motion is not automatically struck out; court may sever reliefs and sustain motion via inherent jurisdiction under Section 3A.
The Court observed that omnibus applications seek reliefs under different benches. Rather than strike out, it invoked Section 3A to sever single-Judge reliefs from bench reliefs, sustaining the motion. This avoids injustice and handles jurisdiction appropriately on case-by-case basis.
Whether leave to amend out-of-time response is appropriate
Leave to amend first response granted; second out-of-time response struck out as nullity.
Respondent did not oppose amendment. Court found Rule 17A suited amendment. Second response filed out of time without leave is nullity per Salat case and struck out. Alternative prayer granted within 7 days.
Legal principles established
#- A court response filed out of time without leave is a nullity and must be struck out.
- An omnibus application is not automatically struck out for seeking reliefs under different benches.
- The Supreme Court may use inherent jurisdiction under Section 3A to sustain a motion by severing reliefs.
- Single-Judge reliefs can be separated from six-Judge Bench reliefs within one omnibus motion.
- Leave to amend a response may be granted where the other side does not oppose.
- Costs of a preliminary motion can abide the outcome of the main appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.Motion dated 15th August 2025 allowed to extent that applicant's alternative prayer granted
- 2.Applicant granted leave to amend its response dated 16th May 2025 and filed on 21st May 2025 within seven days of ruling
- 3.Applicant's grounds of objection dated 16th May 2025 and filed on 30th May 2025 struck out
- 4.Costs of this Motion shall abide by the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3 and 21(2) of the Supreme Court Act, Cap 9B; Rules 3, 15(2) and 31 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020; Section 3A and 23 of the Supreme Court Act
Relief refused
#Prayer for setting aside Deputy Registrar's directions of 11th July 2025
Court severed relief for single Judge and elected not to pronounce itself on that prayer
Prayer for extension of time to file response to cross appeal (primary prayer)
Court granted alternative prayer for leave to amend instead; respondent did not oppose but amendment was better suited
Prayer for certification as urgent
Overtaken by events
Costs
The costs of this Motion shall abide by the outcome of the appeal
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Cognizant that our paramount duty as a Court is to do justice, we invoke our inherent jurisdiction under Section 3A of the Supreme Court to sustain the Motion as opposed to striking it out in its entirety.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated 15th May 2026 but references events of August/September 2025 and motion filed August 2025; also internal numbering shows '190499...' artifacts. No contradiction in legal content but date sequence acceptable. However, paragraph [1] references directions of 11th July 2025 suspending compliance pending determination of application for joinder dated 16th April 2025, while para [3] says Deputy Registrar suspended pending Notice of Motion dated 16th April 2025 seeking joinder — consistent. No material contradiction found.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Manage omnibus filings carefully
When drafting omnibus motions in the Supreme Court, anticipate objection on bench-split grounds. Rely on Section 3A to sever and sustain. File amendments promptly; a late second response without leave will be struck as a nullity per Salat.
Government filings can be fixed
If your matter involves state parties, know that late responses may be cured by amendment leave within a short window. A second out-of-time filing without court leave adds no value and will be struck out at cost risk abiding appeal.
Late court papers risk nullity
If you file a response after the deadline without asking the court first, it is treated as nothing and removed. You may still get leave to amend an earlier paper within days if the other side does not object.
Frequently asked questions
#What happens to a late court response in Kenya?+
In Kenya, a response filed after the deadline without the court's leave is a nullity. The Supreme Court will strike it out, as confirmed in the Salat case and applied here.
Can an omnibus application be struck out in Kenya?+
No, not automatically. Kenyan courts may use inherent jurisdiction under Section 3A to split reliefs between benches and keep the valid part of the motion alive instead of striking it out.
How do I amend a response in Kenya Supreme Court?+
You can apply for leave to amend, especially if the other side does not oppose. The Court may grant a short window, such as seven days, to file the amended response under Rule 17A.
What does costs abide outcome mean in Kenya?+
It means the costs of the preliminary motion are not decided now. The losing party on the final appeal will later pay those costs as ordered by the court.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Attorney General on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government v Nguruman Limited", Case Analysis (2026). PETITION (APPLICATION) NO. E015 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2026/37/eng@2026-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.