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 (Application) 26 of 2019· [2022] KECA 1284 (KLR)

Rural Electrification Authority v Limelight Creatures Limited & 2 others

Court of Appeal
18 November 2022
DMDK MusingaAMAK MurgorFTF Tuiyott
1,778 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal struck out the Rural Electrification Authority's application because it missed a court-ordered seven-day deadline to seek leave to appeal an arbitration ruling.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Rural Electrification Authority sought leave to appeal from the High Court ruling of Ngetich, J delivered December 19, 2018 in Misc. No. 246 of 2017, which dismissed its application to partially set aside an arbitral award and allowed the respondents' application for adoption of the award. It also sought a temporary injunction restraining execution of the ruling and decree. The respondents filed a preliminary objection contending the motion was fatally defective: the application for leave filed on January 29, 2019 was outside the 14-day period under rule 39(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and although Koome, JA (as she then was) granted an extension of time on June 21, 2019, giving seven days to file the application for leave, the applicant never complied. The applicant argued the application was filed with leave of court and that the preliminary objection was itself out of time. The Court of Appeal held that the June 21, 2019 order was plain: it required filing the application for leave within seven days and did not deem the already-filed late application properly on record, so no proper application was before the court. The court also held the preliminary objection was properly before it, since rule 84 (now 86) on striking out does not govern responses to leave applications and rule 50 (now 52) permits affidavits in reply. Emphasising that timelines in arbitration must be observed, the court struck out the notice of motion dated January 15, 2019 with costs. The intended appeal was therefore never instituted and the injunction was refused.

Key legal issues

#
01

Effect of the June 21, 2019 extension-of-time order on the application filed January 29, 2019

Holding

The order required filing a fresh application for leave within seven days and did not validate the already-filed late application; the application before the court was therefore improper.

Reasoning

The court read the June 21, 2019 order of Koome, JA (as she then was) plainly: the applicant was given seven days from that ruling to file the application for leave. The order contained no deeming provision. The application filed on January 29, 2019 predated the order and was not the application contemplated, leaving the court without a proper application.

p. 3
02

Timeliness of the respondents' preliminary objection

Holding

The objection was properly before the court; rule 84 (now 86) on striking out does not govern responses to leave applications, and rule 50 permits affidavits in reply.

Reasoning

Counsel for the applicant argued the objection was out of time under a 30-day rule. The court held that rule applies to applications to strike out a notice or appeal, not to leave applications under rule 39. A respondent answers such an application by affidavit in reply under rule 50, and a preliminary objection plus supplementary affidavit breached no rule.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An order granting extension of time to file an application for leave does not deem an already-filed late application properly on record; the party must file within the time granted.
  • Timelines set by statute or imposed by court, especially in arbitration, must be observed; failure to keep them is not to be tolerated.
  • A respondent to an application for leave to appeal may respond by preliminary objection and affidavit in reply under rule 50 (now 52), and no 30-day limitation applies to such a response.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated January 15, 2019 is struck out with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 39(b) (now 41(b))
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 50 (now 52)
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 84 (now 86)
  • Arbitration Actsection 39
  • Arbitration Actsection 39(2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Mae Properties Limited v Joseph Kibe & another
    [2017] eKLR

    Importance of parties keeping to timelines set by statute or imposed by court.

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Misc. No. 246 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Court of Appeal Rules, rule 39(b) (now 41(b)) - appeal from arbitral decision lies only with leave of the Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rural Electrification Authority v Limelight Creatures Limited & 2 others", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Appeal (Application) 26 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/1284/eng@2022-11-18

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