Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedNot stated in the judgment

CORPORATE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs NYALI BEACH HOTEL LIMITED [1997] KECA 242 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
18 April 1997
AAA. M. Akiwumi
377 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal granted a second chance to appeal where a roughly two-month delay occurred, stressing the respondent suffered no real prejudice.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short interlocutory ruling by Akiwumi, JA of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered on 18th April 1997, on an application for extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal and the related record of appeal. The applicant's earlier appeal had been struck out because the record of appeal lacked a certified copy of the decree, as mandatorily required by the Court's rules. A new notice of appeal was lodged on 3rd December 1996 but was not served on the respondent within 7 days as required by rule 76; indeed, on the respondent's affidavit it was never served directly. The court accepted the applicant's submission that the respondent must be deemed to have been served because it was served with a new record of appeal, filed on 13th December 1996, which contained a copy of the notice of appeal. On the substantive question of delay, the court held that the relevant delay was only that occurring after the striking out of the first appeal - about two months - which was not inordinate. The court also took into account that the decretal sum was held in a joint interest-bearing account in the names of the representatives of both parties, so the respondent suffered no prejudice. The application was allowed: the notice of appeal was to be filed within 7 days and the record of appeal already filed deemed filed within 14 days of the lodging of the notice. The respondent was awarded the costs of that day.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the new notice of appeal lodged on 3rd December 1996 was served as required by rule 76 within 7 days of lodging
  2. 2.Whether the delay of about 2 months in filing the notice of appeal and record of appeal after the striking out of the first appeal was inordinate
  3. 3.Whether extension of time should be granted

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of about two months after the striking out of the first appeal was inordinate

Holding

A delay of about two months was not inordinate, particularly where the decretal sum was secured in a joint interest-bearing account in the names of the representatives of both parties.

Reasoning

The court confined its assessment of delay to the period after the striking out of the first record of appeal, since the earlier history had already been dealt with. A two-month delay was considered modest. The court also weighed the fact that the decretal sum was held in a joint interest-bearing account in the names of both parties' representatives, meaning the respondent suffered no prejudice from the delay.

p. 2
02

Whether service of the record of appeal containing the notice of appeal satisfied rule 76

Holding

Deemed service through the record of appeal complied with rule 76 despite being some 10 days after lodging.

Reasoning

The respondent was served with a new record of appeal filed on 13th December 1996 which contained a copy of the notice of appeal. The court accepted the applicant's submission that this amounted to deemed service, even though it occurred about 10 days after the notice was lodged, outside the 7-day requirement of rule 76.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A notice of appeal may be treated as sufficiently served where the respondent is served with a record of appeal containing a copy of the notice of appeal, even if that service occurred after the 7-day period in rule 76.
  • Where an earlier record of appeal has been struck out for want of a certified copy of the decree, the delay relevant to an extension application is the delay after the striking out, not the earlier history.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for extension of time is granted
  2. 2.The notice of appeal to be filed within 7 days
  3. 3.The record of appeal already filed to be deemed to have been filed within 14 days after the lodging of the notice of appeal
  4. 4.The respondent to have its costs for today

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

AA
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to extend time under its rules (rule 76 referenced regarding service of notice of 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.

I will grant the application and order that the notice of appeal be filed within 7 days and the record of appeal already filed be deemed to have been filed within 14 days after the lodging of the notice of appeal.
p. 2Final orders - extension of time granted
This delay is about 2 months which I do not think is inordinate.
p. 2Assessment of delay
the delay that is relevant to this is not what happened prior to the striking out of the first intended appeal but what happened subsequently.
p. 2Relevant period for assessing delay after striking out

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment does not state the case number, the parties' names, or the decision appealed from; it is a short ruling on extension of time.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "CORPORATE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs NYALI BEACH HOTEL LIMITED [1997] KECA 242 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1997). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1997/242/eng@1997-04-18

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.