Trust Bank Limited v Kicomi (1993) Limited [2002] KECA 273 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out Kicomi's appeal because it waited too long to request court proceedings — missing deadlines can end your appeal entirely.
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 should be struck out given the delay in applying for certified proceedings
- 2.Whether the respondent could rely on the proviso to rule 87(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules or obtain a certificate of delay to explain the delay
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent's delay in applying for proceedings defeated its intended appeal
Yes. The application for proceedings was made well outside thirty days, which barred reliance on the proviso to rule 87(1); without a certificate of delay the delay could not be explained, justifying striking out the notice of appeal.
The court accepted the applicant's counsel's submissions, noting the respondent had done nothing on its intended appeal since lodging the motion on 25th October 2000. The court declined to keep the application pending indefinitely despite sympathy for the respondent's counsel's predicament, holding the delay fatal to the notice of appeal.
Legal principles established
#- A party who applies for proceedings outside thirty days from the date of the decision appealed against cannot rely on the proviso to rule 87(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and without a certificate of delay cannot explain the delay; the notice of appeal may then be struck out.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of appeal lodged in the Court on 15th May, 2000 is struck out
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the applicant
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. 966 of 1999
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent/appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under its Rules (rule 87(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules) in an application to strike out a notice of appeal
Relief refused
#Respondent's continued pursuit of its intended appeal via the notice of appeal
The respondent applied for proceedings well outside thirty days from the decision, depriving it of reliance on the proviso to rule 87(1) and making the delay inexplicable absent a certificate of delay
Costs
Costs of the application to the applicant (the notice of appeal struck out 'with costs to the applicant')
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.
There is no denying the fact that the respondent applied for proceedings well outside thirty days from the date on which the decision sought to be challenged on appeal was made.
We allow this motion and order that the notice of appeal lodged in this Court on 15th May, 2000 be and is hereby struck out with costs to the applicant.
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical error in the judgment: 'well night impossible' appears where 'well nigh impossible' is evidently intended.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Trust Bank Limited v Kicomi (1993) Limited [2002] KECA 273 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Civil Application No. Nai. 297 of 2000. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/273/eng@2002-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.