AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealOtherCivil Appeal No. 17 of 2000
FRANCIS MUNYUA WANYOIKE v SOBHAGCHAND GOSAR SHAH [2000] KECA 380 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal adjourned an out-of-time appeal because counsel miscalculated the filing deadline, and made the appellant pay the resulting costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This is a brief interlocutory ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Shah, Bosire and O'Kubasu JJ.A) in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2000, an appeal from the judgment of Lady Justice Angawa delivered on 2 June 1999 in H.C.C. No. 2283 of 1995. The appeal had been filed out of time. Examining the certificate of delay in the record of appeal, the court found that counsel for the appellant had been mistaken as to the date from which the time for filing the record of appeal began to run. Mr Gichachi, counsel for the appellant, sought an adjournment to enable him to regularise the error. The court, being minded to grant the indulgence, allowed the adjournment: it took the appeal out of the day's hearing list and stood it over generally, with the appellant to pay the respondent's costs occasioned by the adjournment. The ruling determines no substantive issue, decides nothing on the merits of the appeal or on the out-of-time filing itself, and sets no binding precedent. It is recorded here chiefly for its procedural disposition and its limited costs order, which is confined to costs occasioned by the adjournment rather than the costs of the appeal.
Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appeal, filed out of time, should be adjourned to enable counsel to regularise the error regarding when time for filing the record of appeal began to run
Key legal issues
#Legal principles established
#Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is taken out of the day's hearing list and stood over generally
- 2.The appellant shall pay the respondent's costs occasioned by the adjournment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C. No. 2283 of 1995
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over the High Court (the judgment does not cite a specific constitutional or statutory provision)
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.
We accordingly take out the appeal from today's hearing list and stand it over generally. The appellant shall pay the respondent's costs occasioned by the adjournment.
Looking behind the certificate of delay included in the record of appeal, it is clear that Counsel for the appellant was mistaken as from when the time for filing the record of appeal started running.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "FRANCIS MUNYUA WANYOIKE v SOBHAGCHAND GOSAR SHAH [2000] KECA 380 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2000). Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2000. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/380/eng@2000-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.