Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal (Application) E346 of 2022· [2022] KECA 1301 (KLR)

Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndunda

Court of Appeal
2 December 2022
1,289 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to let Co-operative Bank dodge a discovery order, ruling that lost old records are a minor procedural issue, not an appealable grievance.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court of Appeal (G W Ngenye-Macharia, JA) dismissed an application by Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court (A Mabeya, J) made on 10 June 2021 in HCC No. 483 of 2003, directing the bank to produce documents for discovery, including records of accounts held in the respondent's name and bank statements for 1998 to 2003. The bank's notice of appeal was filed on 15 June 2021, but the High Court refused leave by a ruling of 9 September 2022, prompting this motion under sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rules 39(B), 42(1), 43 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010. The bank argued the intended appeal raised serious questions of law, notably whether discovery can be ordered 17 years after filing a suit, and that it could not produce the documents owing to technological change and the passage of time, exposing it to contempt. The respondent opposed, citing non-compliance with the High Court orders and delay. The court held that the leave decision is discretionary and judicially considered; that the bank's complaint was a minor procedural matter not going to the root of the litigation, with review available as an alternative; and that the contempt apprehension was unfounded since no contempt application existed. Finding no realistic prospects of success, the court dismissed the application with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether inability to produce documents for discovery, attributed to technological advancement and lapse of time, is an arguable ground of appeal

Holding

It is not; it is a minor procedural matter not going to the root of the litigation, and review of the impugned order was available

Reasoning

The court found the applicant's complaint that 17 years had elapsed and documents no longer existed to be non-arguable. The applicant could have sought review of the discovery order instead. The contempt risk was speculative since no contempt application had been filed and the suit, not contempt proceedings, was set for hearing.

02

Standard of proof and elements of contempt of court

Holding

Contempt must be proved to a standard higher than balance of probabilities but lower than beyond reasonable doubt; the order must be lawful, known to the alleged contemnor, and disobeyed despite ability to comply

Reasoning

In rejecting the applicant's fear of being cited for contempt, the court set out the ingredients: a lawful order, knowledge of it, and failure to comply despite ability. Since no contempt application existed and only the suit was listed, the apprehension was unfounded.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Whether to grant leave to appeal is a matter for the court's discretion, to be judicially considered
  • A party to civil proceedings is under a duty to assist the court to further the overriding objectives of the Civil Procedure Act and to comply with the court's directions and orders

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsection 3A
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsection 3B
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 39(B)
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 42(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 43
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 47
  • Constitution of Kenyaarticle 159(2)(d)
  • Civil Procedure Actoverriding objectives

Cases cited (3)

  • Kenya Shell Limited v Kobil Petroleum Limited
    [2006] eKLR

    Leave to appeal is a matter for the court's discretion, to be judicially considered

  • Machira t/a Machira & Company Advocates vs Mwangi & Another
    [2002] KLR

    Relied on by the applicant's counsel on granting of leave to appeal

  • ABN Amro Bank N V v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited
    [2014]

    Relied on by the respondent's counsel in opposing the application

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Commercial and Tax Division
HCC No. 483 of 2003
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; rules 39(B), 42(1), 43 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010; article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndunda", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Appeal (Application) E346 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/1301/eng@2022-12-02

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