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 AppealStruck OutCivil Appeal No. 105 of 2001

Thuita Mwangi v Kenya Airways Limited [2002] KECA 100 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
6 June 2002
RKR.O. KwachALA.A. LakhaSBS.E.O. Bosire
205 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 an appeal filed just two weeks late, confirming that missed filing deadlines end appeals unless you first obtain an extension.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This brief ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered on 6 June 2002 by the full bench of Kwach, Lakha and Bosire, JJ.A., resolved an application under rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules to strike out the appellant's appeal as incompetent for want of timely filing. The appeal lay from the judgment and decree of the High Court at Nairobi (Hayanga J) delivered on 29 September 2000 in H.C.C.C. No. 2570 of 1994. The court recorded that the copies of the proceedings were ready on 15 March 2001, fixing 14 May 2001 as the last day for filing the appeal; the appeal was nevertheless not filed until 28 May 2001, without leave or any valid extension of time. On those facts the court held the appeal clearly filed out of time and therefore incompetent, and struck it out with costs, including the costs of the application. The court further rejected reliance on rule 81, holding that the rule was of no merit because it did not apply. No question on the merits of the appeal was reached; the decision of the High Court therefore stands undisturbed, the appeal having been extinguished on a purely procedural ground. The ruling binds lower courts to the principle that an appeal filed outside the prescribed period, without leave or a valid extension, is incompetent and liable to be struck out with costs under rule 80.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the appeal, filed on 28 May 2001 after the last day for filing (14 May 2001) and without leave or any valid extension of time, is incompetent and liable to be struck out under rule 80 of the Rules of this Court.
  2. 2.Whether rule 81 of the Rules of this Court applies so as to save the appeal from being struck out.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an appeal filed after the prescribed time, without leave or a valid extension, is incompetent.

Holding

Yes. The appeal was filed out of time and is therefore incompetent, and it was struck out under rule 80 with costs.

Reasoning

The court computed the filing window from the date the copies of the proceedings were ready: the copies were ready on 15 March 2001, making 14 May the last day for filing the appeal. The appeal was not filed until 28 May 2001, and no leave or valid extension had been obtained. Filing outside that window without leave rendered the appeal incompetent, attracting striking out under rule 80 with costs, including the costs of the application.

p. 2
02

Whether rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules applies to the appeal.

Holding

No. Rule 81 is of no merit as it does not apply to the appeal.

Reasoning

The ruling does not explain the basis on which rule 81 was invoked; it simply holds that the rule is of no merit because it does not apply to the appeal. Whatever rescue rule 81 might have offered against the rule 80 striking-out application therefore failed, leaving the finding of incompetence intact and the striking out with costs undisturbed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal filed outside the prescribed time, without leave of the Court or a valid extension, is incompetent and liable to be struck out under rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  • Rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules does not apply to rescue an appeal that is out of time and incompetent under rule 80.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is struck out.
  2. 2.Costs of the appeal awarded, including the costs of the application under rule 80.

The bench

#

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

RK
majority
AL
majority
SB
majority
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C.C.C. No. 2570 of 1994
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated in the ruling. The appeal lies from the High Court; the application disposed of by the Court was brought under 'rule 80 of the Rules of this Court' (the Court of Appeal Rules).

Relief refused

#

Validation of the appeal filed out of time (leave or extension of time)

The appeal was filed on 28 May 2001, after the last day for filing of 14 May 2001, without leave or any valid extension.

p. 2

Rescue of the appeal through rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules

The court held that rule 81 is of no merit because it does not apply to the appeal.

p. 2

Hearing of the appeal on the merits

The appeal was incompetent for having been filed out of time and was struck out before any consideration of the merits.

p. 2

Costs

The appeal is struck out with costs including the costs of the application.

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 copies of the proceedings were ready on 15 March, 2001 and the last day for filing of the appeal was 14 May.
p. 2Computation of the time for filing an appeal
The appeal is clearly filed out of time and therefore incompetent.
p. 2Incompetence of an appeal filed out of time without leave or extension
Rule 81 however is of no merit as it does not apply
p. 2Inapplicability of rule 81 to an out-of-time appeal
Accordingly the appeal is struck out with costs including the costs of the application.
p. 2Final orders - striking out and costs

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Thuita Mwangi v Kenya Airways Limited [2002] KECA 100 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2001. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/100/eng@2002-06-06

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