Kenya Union of Savings & Credit Co-operative Limited v Onsando Osiemo T/aonsando Osiemo & Company Advocates
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused KUSCCO permission to challenge a Kshs 1.3 million taxation ruling, finding its three-month delay unexplained and its appeal without realistic prospects of success.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Test for grant of leave to appeal from a decision of the High Court
Leave is granted where there are grounds of appeal meriting serious judicial consideration; leave is refused where the applicant has no realistic prospects of success, and a stronger case is needed where the order was made in the exercise of judicial discretion
The Court restated the settled principles from Sango Bay Estates and J. P. Machira: leave is a matter of discretion, granted where grounds merit serious judicial consideration, refused only where no realistic prospects of success exist, with a stronger case required to disturb an order made in the exercise of judicial discretion.
Whether the applicant demonstrated a basis for leave where it sought extension of time to object to a taxation
No leave: the applicant delayed three months, did not request the taxing master's reasons as required by Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, and gave no serious explanation, so no wrong exercise of discretion or novel point of law was shown
The applicant's application for extension of time was made three months after taxation, without requesting the taxing master's reasons as Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order requires. Delay was unexplained beyond a casual, undisclosed blame of former advocates. Hence the High Court's discretionary ruling could not be disturbed and the intended appeal raised no novel point of law.
Legal principles established
#- Leave to appeal should normally be granted where prima facie there are grounds of appeal meriting serious judicial consideration; the Court will refuse leave only where the applicant has no realistic prospects of success, and a stronger case is required where the order appealed from was made in the exercise of judicial discretion
Court orders
#- 1.The application for leave to appeal and stay of proceedings is dismissed
- 2.No orders on costs, the respondent not having appeared to defend the application
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- HCCC No. 81 of 2005
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Leave to appeal from the High Court under the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010 (application cited as under Orders 39(b), 41 and 47(1) of those Rules)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Savings & Credit Co-operative Limited v Onsando Osiemo T/aonsando Osiemo & Company Advocates", Case Analysis (2014). Civil Application No. NAI 38 of 2011 (UR 24/2011). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2014/359/eng@2014-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.