Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedCivil Miscellaneous Application 205 of 1998

STANDARD PROPERTIES LIMITED & CAPITAL TRUSTEES LIMITED vs HAIRCARE BEAUTICIANS LIMITED [1999] KECA 143 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
4 May 1999
201 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a Notice of Appeal filed late without permission is invalid and will be struck out, along with any orders based on it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This short ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered by a bench of Tunoi, Shah and Lakha, JJA, determined an application by Standard Properties Limited and Capital Trustees Limited to strike out a Notice of Appeal filed by Haircare Beauticians Limited under rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules. The intended appeal lay from a ruling of Kuloba, J in High Court Civil Case No. 2494 of 1997 delivered on 17th June 1998. The applicants demonstrated that the Notice of Appeal, filed on 10th July 1998, was out of time and that no leave or extension of time had been validly obtained, nor any valid leave to appeal. The application was unopposed, there being no replying affidavit. The court allowed the application, struck out the Notice of Appeal, and consequently vacated its own interim order made on 23rd July 1998, awarding the applicants the costs of the application. The ruling is a single judgment of the whole court with no separate opinions or dissents, and it cites no authorities. Its binding significance for lower courts and practitioners lies in the confirmation that a notice of appeal filed out of time without valid leave or extension is a nullity liable to be struck out, and that orders founded upon such a defective notice cannot stand.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Notice of Appeal filed out of time without valid leave or extension should be struck out under rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of a Notice of Appeal filed out of time without leave

Holding

A Notice of Appeal filed out of time without valid leave or extension of time must be struck out under rule 80, and orders made in reliance on it are vacated.

Reasoning

The application was brought under rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules. The Notice of Appeal was filed on 10th July 1998, beyond the prescribed time, and no leave or extension of time had been validly obtained, nor any leave to appeal. There was no replying affidavit opposing the application. In those uncontroverted circumstances the court allowed the application, struck out the notice and vacated its earlier order of 23rd July 1998, with costs to the applicants.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A Notice of Appeal filed out of time, where no valid leave or extension of time has been obtained, is liable to be struck out under rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules, and any interim order founded on such a notice falls with it.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Appeal is struck out
  2. 2.The Order of the Court made on 23rd July, 1998 is vacated
  3. 3.The applicants are awarded the costs of the application

The bench

#

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

majority
majority
majority
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C.C.C. No. 2494 of 1997
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application to strike out a Notice of Appeal in an intended 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.

It was filed on 10th July, 1998 which is out of time. No leave or extension has been validly obtained Nor has any leave to appeal been obtained validly.
p. 1Out-of-time notice of appeal without leave
The notice of appeal is struck out and the Order of this Court made on 23rd July, 1998 is consequently vacated. The applicant shall have costs of this application.
p. 1Final orders - striking out and vacation of earlier order

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment does not name the author of the ruling; it is signed by all three judges collectively, so no individual authorship can be attributed.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "STANDARD PROPERTIES LIMITED & CAPITAL TRUSTEES LIMITED vs HAIRCARE BEAUTICIANS LIMITED [1999] KECA 143 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1999). Civil Miscellaneous Application 205 of 1998. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1999/143/eng@1999-05-04

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