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 AppealOtherCivil Application E021 of 2022· [2022] KECA 1368 (KLR)

Africa Blooms Limited v Gatari (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Samuel Karuga Gatari (Deceased))

Court of Appeal
8 December 2022
2,781 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal confirmed that reinstating a dismissed appeal application in Kenya requires strict compliance with the 30-day deadline, and late applicants must first obtain an extension of time.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Africa Blooms Limited applied to the Court of Appeal at Nakuru, by notice of motion dated 6 May 2022, for enlargement of time, reinstatement of its notice of motion dated 2 August 2019 (an application for stay of execution dismissed for want of prosecution on 3 February 2021 by Nambuye, Asike-Makhandia and ole Kantai, JJ.A), rescission of those dismissal orders, and interim injunctive relief restraining Gadson Gatari, as legal representative of the estate of Samuel Karuga Gatari, from executing a decree in Nakuru HCCC No 11 of 2004 by taking possession of or demolishing structures on about 9.43 acres of LR No 9770/11 in Nakuru County. The applicant blamed its former advocates' non-attendance for the dismissal, asserting it learned of it only in April 2022 and filed within 30 days of that awareness. The respondent opposed, contending the application was out of time under rule 56(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules and that the applicant, a juristic person, was guilty of laches. The court held that rule 56(4) is mandatory, requiring a reinstatement application within 30 days of the decision, and that the applicant, having filed out of time, must first obtain enlargement of time. It referred the enlargement of time application to a single judge for determination before the other prayers could be considered, and made no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Timeliness of an application for reinstatement under rule 56(3) and (4)

Holding

The 30-day period in rule 56(4) is mandatory; the applicant filed more than a year after dismissal, though within 30 days of becoming aware of it.

Reasoning

The court reproduced rule 56(3) and (4), noted the dismissal on 3 February 2021 and the filing on 6 May 2022, and held the rule mandatory as to the 30-day period from the decision, requiring enlargement of time before reinstatement can be entertained.

p. 5
02

Procedural sequencing of the prayers sought

Holding

The enlargement of time application must first be heard by a single judge before the reinstatement, injunction and stay prayers can be considered.

Reasoning

The court observed that the applicant had bundled a motley of prayers, and that the threshold question of enlargement of time had to be determined first by a single judge, with a reference lying to the court if dissatisfied.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for reinstatement under rule 56(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules must be made within 30 days of the decision, and where a party is out of time, enlargement of time must first be obtained before the reinstatement application can be heard.
  • Before a reinstatement application filed out of time can be heard, the applicant must first obtain an order for enlargement of time.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the application for enlargement of time be placed before a single judge to be heard to determine whether it is merited or not, before the other prayers sought by the applicant can be considered
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsections 3A & 3B
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 4
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 5(2)(b)
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 42
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 43
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 47
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 56(3)
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 56(4)
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 57(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 53
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 102
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010article 50(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010article 159(2)(d)

Cases cited (5)

  • Kasturi Ltd vs Thogo (Civil Application 372 of 2018) [2021] KECA 88 (KLR)
    [2021] KECA 88 (KLR)

    Support for enlargement of time where delay was occasioned by former advocates' lack of diligence

  • Giella vs Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358
    (1973) EA 358

    Locus classicus on prerequisites for grant of temporary injunction

  • Nguruman Limited vs Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others CA No 77 of 2012 (2014) eKLR
    (2014) eKLR

    Reiteration of the temporary injunction threshold

  • Tana and Athi Rivers Development Authority v Jeremiah Kimigho Mwakio & 3 others (2015) eKLR
    (2015) eKLR

    A juristic person ought to trace the progress of its own application with its advocates

  • Habo Agencies Limited v Wilfred Odhiambo Musingo (2015) eKLR
    (2015) eKLR

    Cited with approval in Tana and Athi Rivers Development Authority on a party's duty to follow up its case

On appeal from
Court of Appeal (differently constituted)
Civil Application (notice of motion dated 2nd August 2019)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3A & 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; rules 4, 5(2)(b), 42, 43, 47, 56(3), 56(4) & 57(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010; articles 50(1) & 159(2)(d) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Africa Blooms Limited v Gatari (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Samuel Karuga Gatari (Deceased))", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Application E021 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/1368/eng@2022-12-08

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