Castrol Limited v Kobil Petroleum Limited [2012] KECA 160 (KLR)
The bottom line
#When a Kenyan appeal becomes pointless because events have moved on, the Court of Appeal can let parties walk away with each side covering its own legal costs.
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 appellant should be granted leave to withdraw the appeal
- 2.Who should bear the costs of the withdrawn appeal
Key legal issues
#Costs upon withdrawal of an appeal overtaken by events
The Court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs where the subject matter of the appeal had lapsed by effluxion of time and the delay was institutional.
The appeal concerned interim injunctions restraining termination of a distribution agreement pending arbitration. The anticipated five-year agreement expired in about 2004, so the appeal was overtaken by events. Although the appeal remained pending for over seven years, the delay was caused by the court diary, not by either party, and it would be unjust to penalise the appellant with costs. The Court therefore permitted withdrawal under Rule 96(5) with no orders as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- Where an appeal is overtaken by events and the delay in its disposal is institutional rather than attributable to either party, the just exercise of the court's discretion on costs is that each party bear its own costs.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to withdraw the appeal
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
- 3.Appeal withdrawn under Rule 96(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules with no orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 73 of 2001
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 96(5) (appeal against an order of the High Court)
Relief refused
#Respondent's prayer for costs of the appeal payable by the appellant
The delay in disposing of the appeal was institutional, caused by the court diary, and could not be attributed to either party; costs are discretionary.
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs; the appeal was withdrawn with no orders as to costs.
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.
Costs are at the discretion of the Court. It is just in the circumstances of the appeal that each party should bear its own costs.
In the result, the appeal is withdrawn under Rule 96 (5) of the Court of Appeal Rules with no orders as to costs.
However the delay in disposing the appeal before it lapsed cannot be attributed to either party. It was an institutional delay caused by court diary.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the respondent is described as having filed the originating chamber summons 'Consequent on that letter' dated 14th November 2000, yet the application is dated 21st March 2001 while interim orders are recorded as granted on 22nd February 2001, before the application's stated date.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Castrol Limited v Kobil Petroleum Limited [2012] KECA 160 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2012). Civil Appeal No. 303 of 2001. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2012/160/eng@2012-03-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.