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 AppealAllowedCivil Misc Appl 246 of 2000 (printed as '246 of 100')

SHAH HIRJI MANEK LIMITED vs RAMESH PREMCHAND SHAH,SUNNY STYLE MANUFACTURERS,UKAY ESTATES LIMITED & NAKUMATT HOLDINGS LIMITED [2000] KECA 177 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
1 January 2000
ALA. A. Lakha
156 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 struck out a notice of appeal filed late without leave, confirming that missed appeal deadlines can end your appeal entirely.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered by Lakha, JA, in a miscellaneous application under rule 50 of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking to strike out a notice of appeal lodged on 30th August 1999. The underlying ruling of the superior court had been delivered on 30th July 1999, and the court recorded that 4th October 1999 was the last day for filing the appeal. The applicant contended, and the court accepted, that the appeal had been filed out of time and without any leave or valid extension of time. On that basis the court held that the notice of appeal fell to be struck out, allowed the application, and struck out the notice of appeal with costs, including the costs of the application. No authorities were cited and no separate opinions were written; the ruling is a single judgment of the court. The decision is a routine interlocutory one affirming that an appeal filed outside the prescribed period, without leave or a valid extension, cannot stand and is liable to be struck out under rule 50. The certified copy of the ruling bears only the year 2000, and the case number as printed ('246 of 100') appears to contain a typographical error.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the notice of appeal lodged on 30th August 1999 should be struck out as having been filed out of time without leave or a valid extension

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an appeal filed out of time without leave or valid extension can stand

Holding

The notice of appeal was filed out of time and without leave or a valid extension, and was therefore struck out.

Reasoning

The superior court's ruling was delivered on 30th July 1999, fixing 4th October 1999 as the last day for filing the appeal. The notice of appeal was lodged on 30th August 1999, well after the ruling, without any leave or valid extension of time having been obtained. The court treated the appeal as out of time and, under rule 50 of the Court of Appeal Rules, struck out the notice of appeal with costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A notice of appeal filed after the expiry of the prescribed period, without leave or a valid extension of time, is liable to be struck out under rule 50 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of appeal is struck out
  2. 2.Costs of the striking-out application and of the notice of appeal awarded to the respondents, including the costs of the application

The bench

#

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

AL
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
High Court (superior court)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 50 of the Court of Appeal Rules (power to strike out a 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.

The appeal filed is out of time. Accordingly, the notice of appeal falls to be struck out. The application succeeds and the notice of appeal is struck out with costs including the costs of the application.
p. 2Final orders - striking out of out-of-time notice of appeal
This is an application under rule 50 of the Rules of this Court to strike out the notice of appeal lodged in Court on 30th August, 1999.
p. 2Jurisdictional basis - rule 50 striking-out application

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The case number is printed as 'CIVIL MISC APPL 246 OF 100', which appears to be a typographical error, likely for 246 of 2000; the ruling itself is dated 2000.

material

The judgment contains an internal chronological inconsistency: it states the last day for filing the appeal was 4th October 1999, yet treats the notice of appeal lodged on 30th August 1999 as 'well after' and out of time.

minor

The date of judgment is not stated; only the year '2000.' appears at the end of the ruling.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "SHAH HIRJI MANEK LIMITED vs RAMESH PREMCHAND SHAH,SUNNY STYLE MANUFACTURERS,UKAY ESTATES LIMITED & NAKUMATT HOLDINGS LIMITED [2000] KECA 177 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2000). Civil Misc Appl 246 of 2000 (printed as '246 of 100'). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/177/eng@2000-12-18

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