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 AppealDismissedCivil Application No. Nai 260 of 1996 (98/96 UR)

SAMAKI INDUSTRIES (NAIROBI) LIMITED vs SAMAKI INDUSTRIES (K) LIMITED [1997] KECA 330 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
27 February 1997
ROR. S. C. OmoloAAA. M. AkiwumiGPG. S. Pall
706 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed it will rarely overturn a single judge's decision to extend appeal filing time unless that judge clearly misdirected themselves.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of a full bench of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi on a reference under Rule 54(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, by which the respondent sought to have the court vary, discharge or reverse a decision of Shah, J.A. sitting as a single judge, granting the applicant a further extension of time to lodge its notice of appeal and record of appeal against a High Court decree. The applicant had already lost two previous appeals - the first struck out because it was filed by a person not qualified to practise as an advocate, and the second struck out for another technical problem. The court held that on a reference the full bench does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over the single judge, whose Rule 4 powers are exercised on behalf of the whole court and whose discretion, though unfettered, must be exercised on sound judicial principles. Interference is permissible only where the single judge failed to consider a relevant matter, considered an irrelevant matter, or reached a decision so plainly wrong that no reasonable judge could have reached it. The court was satisfied that the single judge had considered all relevant factors, including the chequered litigation history. The respondent's argument that further delay would be caused by prolonging the litigation failed because it had never been put before the single judge. The reference was dismissed with costs to the applicant.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the full bench on a reference under Rule 54(1)(b) may interfere with a single judge's exercise of discretion under Rule 4 to enlarge time
  2. 2.Whether the single judge's decision to grant a further extension of time to lodge the notice and record of appeal was flawed on the grounds urged by the respondent

Key legal issues

#
01

Scope of the full bench's power on a reference against a single judge's discretionary decision

Holding

The full bench does not sit on appeal from the single judge; it may interfere only on the classic grounds for review of discretion.

Reasoning

Rule 54(1)(b) does not confer appellate jurisdiction over the single judge, whose Rule 4 powers are exercised on behalf of the whole court. The discretion is unfettered but judicial. Interference is confined to cases where a relevant matter was ignored, an irrelevant matter considered, or the result is one no reasonable judge could reach. The single judge here considered the litigation's chequered history and the striking out of two prior appeals, so there was no basis for interference.

p. 1
02

Whether new matters not placed before the single judge may ground interference on the reference

Holding

A point never put before the single judge cannot be raised on the reference, and even if raised it would not justify interference.

Reasoning

The respondent argued that further delay in prolonging the litigation weighed against extension. The court found this point was absent from the material before the single judge, who therefore could not have dealt with it. It could not be introduced on the reference, and in any event would not have warranted disturbing the discretionary decision.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • On a reference under Rule 54(1)(b), the full bench does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over a single judge's Rule 4 decision and may interfere only where the single judge ignored a relevant matter, took into account an irrelevant matter, or reached a decision no reasonable judge could reach.
  • A single judge's discretion under Rule 4 to enlarge time is unfettered but must be exercised on sound judicial principles.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The reference is dismissed with costs to the applicant

The bench

#

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

RO
majority
AA
majority
GP
majority
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
H.C.C.C. No. 482 of 1990
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 54(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (reference against a single judge's decision under Rule 4)

Relief refused

#

Respondent's request that the full bench vary, discharge or reverse the single judge's grant of extension of time

The single judge considered all relevant factors; the point about further delay from prolonging the litigation was not placed before him and could not be raised on the reference

p. 2

Costs

The reference is dismissed with costs to the applicant.

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.

The powers the single Judge exercises under Rule 4 are exercised on behalf of the Court and the discretion given to him is unfettered though like all judicial discretion, it must be exercised on sound principles.
p. 1Nature of single judge's discretion under Rule 4
a full bench of three judges can only interfere with that exercise if it be shown that in the exercise of the discretion the single Judge failed to take into account a relevant matter which he ought to have taken into account or that he took into account an irrelevant matter which he ought not to have taken into account, or, short of these two, that the decision he arrived at is so plainly wrong that no reasonable judge, properly directing himself as to the law and the facts, could possibly arrive at the same decision.
p. 1Test for interference on a reference under Rule 54(1)(b)
Our order on it is and shall be that it be and is hereby dismissed with costs to the applicant.
p. 2Final orders - dismissal of the reference

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment describes the decree of the High Court at Mombasa as made on 15th February 1993 in one passage, while the cause title describes the judgment and decree as dated 25th February 1993.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "SAMAKI INDUSTRIES (NAIROBI) LIMITED vs SAMAKI INDUSTRIES (K) LIMITED [1997] KECA 330 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1997). Civil Application No. Nai 260 of 1996 (98/96 UR). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1997/330/eng@1997-02-27

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