KENYA BREWERIES LIMITED vs DANIEL KIERE KIMUNYI [2000] KECA 124 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal extended Kenya Breweries' appeal deadline but penalised it in costs for skipping a simple procedural step: obtaining a certificate of delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an order in the prior extension ruling that was never sought by the applicant could stand
The court exercised its rule 4 discretion to extend time for lodging the record of appeal by 21 days, effectively relieving the applicant from the unrequested 21-day lodgement order
The single judge's earlier order of 13th May 1999 directing lodgement of the record within 21 days had not been sought by the applicant, which at that stage did not even have the proceedings. The judge therefore exercised his discretion under rule 4 in the applicant's favour, extending time by 21 days from the date of the ruling.
Whether the applicant's failure to obtain a certificate of delay under the proviso to rule 81 affected the outcome
The failure did not defeat the extension but justified awarding costs of the application to the respondent, since a certificate of delay would have made the application unnecessary
The applicant received the proceedings on 3rd November 1999 and applied on 30th November 1999 without a certificate of delay. Had it obtained one, the proviso to rule 81 would have left it 33 days to lodge the record, rendering the application unnecessary. The lapse was reflected in the costs order rather than in refusal of the extension.
Legal principles established
#- A single judge may, under rule 4, relieve a party against an order made in its absence that was never sought, by extending time to lodge the record of appeal
- A party who fails to obtain a certificate of delay and thereby loses the benefit of the proviso to rule 81 may be denied costs of a consequential extension application
Court orders
#- 1.Time for lodging the record of appeal extended by 21 days from the date of the ruling
- 2.Costs of the application assessed at K.Shs.3,000/= awarded to the respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nyeri
- H.C.C.C. No. 30 of 1996
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (inherent/appellate discretion to extend time), in a single-judge chambers application
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "KENYA BREWERIES LIMITED vs DANIEL KIERE KIMUNYI [2000] KECA 124 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2000). Civil Application No. NAI. 365 of 1999 (NYR. 22/99). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/124/eng@2000-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.