Abercrombie & Kent Limited & another v Oloololo Game Ranch Limited [1997] KECA 220 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to extend appeal time because the applicants provided no evidence—proving that asking the court for more time requires more than bare assertions.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Extension of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to place sufficient material before the court demonstrating that the intended appeal turned on a serious issue rather than serving only to delay the trial suit
The applicants' earlier appeal had been struck out as incompetent because the notice of appeal was unsigned contrary to rule 74(6). On the fresh application, the court found nothing in the supporting affidavit showing the effect of the alleged defect in the affidavit of Mugesa Ole Kuseyo in the superior court, and no rebuttal to the respondent's submission that the intended appeal would merely delay the suit. In the absence of material and rebuttal, the discretion under rule 4 could not be exercised in the applicants' favour.
Competency of an unsigned notice of appeal
A notice of appeal unsigned by or on behalf of the applicant, as required by rule 74(6), means there is no valid notice of appeal and the appeal founded on it is incompetent
The court recorded that the applicants' original appeal No. 80 of 1996 had been struck out on 10th April 1997 precisely because the notice of appeal was unsigned, rendering the appeal incompetent. This explains the procedural context of the fresh extension-of-time application and restates the mandatory character of the signature requirement under rule 74(6).
Legal principles established
#- An applicant seeking extension of time under rule 4 must place sufficient material before the court to justify the exercise of the discretion in their favour; inadequacy of material justifies dismissal of the application
- A notice of appeal must be signed by or on behalf of the applicant as required by rule 74(6); an unsigned notice renders the appeal incompetent
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time within which to lodge the notice and the record of appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. No. 3457 of 1995
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (in chambers, extension of time)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abercrombie & Kent Limited & another v Oloololo Game Ranch Limited [1997] KECA 220 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1997). Civil Application No. Nai. 83 of 1997 (38/97UR). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1997/220/eng@1997-08-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.