WILLIAM JUMA & ANOTHER vs KENYA BREWERIES LIMITED & ANOTHER [1997] KECA 237 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to kill an appeal where court proceedings went missing, protecting appellants who diligently pursued their files.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the respondents' notice of appeal should be struck out on the ground that they failed to take an essential step in the appeal process by not filing the record of appeal in time
Key legal issues
#Whether failure to file the record of appeal in time warrants striking out a notice of appeal
The application was dismissed; the delay was excused because the proceedings had been permanently missing and the respondents had diligently pursued them, including requesting copies of the proceedings and judgment nine days after judgment
The applicants relied on the respondents' letter of 18th June 1993 requesting copies of the proceedings and judgment to show that nothing further had been done to pursue the appeal. The court accepted that stay had been obtained and that the proceedings had been permanently missing until recently, so the respondents could not be faulted for the delay in filing the record. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Legal principles established
#- A notice of appeal will not be struck out for failure to file the record of appeal in time where the appellant has done all that could reasonably be done and the proceedings had been permanently missing
Court orders
#- 1.The application to strike out the notice of appeal is dismissed
- 2.The respondents are awarded the costs of this application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. Nos. 3514 and 3515 of 1985
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to strike out a notice of appeal for failure to take essential steps in the appeal process (as invoked by the application; no specific constitutional or statutory provision is cited in the ruling)
Relief refused
#Striking out of the respondents' notice of appeal
The respondents had done all they could to obtain the proceedings, which had been permanently missing until recently
Costs
The respondents will have their costs of this application.
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.
We fear that the orders that commands itself to us is that the application be dismissed. The respondents will have their costs of this application.
the respondents have done all that they could possibly do to obtain the proceedings which the applicants cannot deny, had "been permanently missing" until recently
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling contains a typographical error in stating the order: "the orders that commands itself to us" appears to be a drafting slip for "the order that commends itself to us"
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "WILLIAM JUMA & ANOTHER vs KENYA BREWERIES LIMITED & ANOTHER [1997] KECA 237 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1997). Civil Application No. NAI 52 of 1997. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1997/237/eng@1997-06-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.