Victor Caetano D'souza & 10 others v Saki Limited [2001] KECA 348 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a stale notice of appeal can be struck out when the appellant has simply lost interest in pursuing it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the respondent's notice of appeal filed on 24th May 2000 should be struck out where the respondent has lost interest in the intended appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether a stale notice of appeal, where the appellant has lost interest, should be struck out
The court struck out the notice of appeal, holding that it would be unfair to the applicants to keep it pending indefinitely where the respondent had lost interest and could not be contacted.
The respondent's notice of appeal had been lodged on 24th May 2000, over a year before the application, and nothing had been heard from the respondent since. Its advocates were unable to communicate with it. The court found that in these circumstances it would be unfair to the applicants to leave the notice of appeal pending indefinitely, and allowed the motion to strike it out with costs.
Legal principles established
#- A notice of appeal may be struck out where the appellant has lost interest in the intended appeal and allowing it to remain pending would be unfair to the respondent.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicants' notice of motion dated 10th July 2001 is allowed
- 2.The respondent's notice of appeal filed in the Court on 24th May 2000 is struck out
- 3.Costs of the notice of appeal to the applicants
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.C. No. 4503 of 19[...]
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to strike out a notice of appeal in an intended appeal (application 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.
We allow the applicants' notice of motion dated 10th July, 2001, and order that the respondent's notice of appeal filed in the Court on 24th May, 2000, be and is hereby struck out with the costs thereof to the applicants.
in the circumstances it would be unfair to the applicants to keep the notice of appeal pending indefinitely
Issues in the judgment
#The High Court case number is incomplete in the judgment as supplied, reading 'H.C.C.C. NO. 4503 OF 19' with the year truncated.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Victor Caetano D'souza & 10 others v Saki Limited [2001] KECA 348 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Civil Application No. Nai 237 of 2001. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/348/eng@2001-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.