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 Appeal No. 188 of 2000 (application dated 31st January, 2001; notice of motion dated 27th September, 2001)

S.W. Njuguna & 3 others v Mataara Tea Factory Co. Ltd & 8 others [2002] KECA 143 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
2 May 2002
ASA.B. Shah
162 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 let an appellant amend their application to seek extra time to appeal after the original was struck out as defective.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a brief unopposed ruling by the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered by A.B. Shah, JA, on 2nd May 2002, dealing with an interlocutory application to amend a notice of motion. The applicant sought to amend the application dated 31st January 2001 (lodged as a notice of motion dated 27th September 2001) by adding a prayer for extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal out of time, so that the applicant could thereafter seek leave to lodge a notice of appeal and a record of appeal out of time. The background was that the original Civil Appeal No. 188 of 2000 had been struck out as incompetent, a fact the court recorded as common ground. Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Sichangi, did not oppose the amendment. The court allowed the application as prayed in prayer 1, ordered that the costs of the application be the respondents' in any event, and directed that the main application, as amended, could be set down for hearing. The ruling is interlocutory and procedural in nature; it determines no substantive appeal, cites no authorities or statutory provisions, and establishes no binding precedent. Its significance lies in the court's willingness to permit amendment of a notice of motion to introduce an extension-of-time prayer where the amendment is unopposed and the underlying appeal had been struck out as incompetent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Amendment of a notice of motion to add a prayer for extension of time

Holding

The court allowed the amendment, unopposed by the respondent, adding a prayer for extension of time to lodge notice of appeal out of time.

Reasoning

The ruling records that Mr. Sichangi for the respondent did not oppose the amendment. The original Civil Appeal No. 188 of 2000 had been struck out as incompetent, and the amendment was necessary to enable the applicant to seek leave to lodge a notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time. The court granted the amendment and allowed the main application to proceed to hearing.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.Application for amendment of the notice of motion allowed as prayed in prayer 1
    2. 2.Costs of the application to the respondents in any event
    3. 3.The main application, as amended, may be set down for hearing
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over applications for extension of time to lodge notice of appeal and record of appeal

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "S.W. Njuguna & 3 others v Mataara Tea Factory Co. Ltd & 8 others [2002] KECA 143 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Civil Appeal No. 188 of 2000 (application dated 31st January, 2001; notice of motion dated 27th September, 2001). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/143/eng@2002-05-02

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