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 AppealDismissedNotice of Motion dated December 9, 2021 (application number not stated in the judgment)· [2023] KECA 411 (KLR)

Kaaya Enterprises Ltd v Commissioner of Customs & Excise

Court of Appeal of Kenya
14 April 2023
1,909 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed an attempt to strike out an appeal because the application itself was filed far outside the mandatory 30-day deadline.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Musinga, P, Laibuta and Gachoka, JJ.A) dismissed a Notice of Motion dated December 9, 2021, brought under section 3 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rules 84, 87(1) and 88 of the Court of Appeal Rules, seeking to strike out a record of appeal dated May 15, 2020. The applicant complained that the respondent, having obtained an extension of time from Gatembu, J.A on April 3, 2020 to file its memorandum and record of appeal within 45 days, filed one day out of time, served the record over four months late, and that the record was defective for omitting certified proceedings, exhibits, decree and judgment. The respondent countered that it had filed a notice of appeal and requested proceedings from the deputy registrar in June 2019 but had never been supplied with them, that the 45 days should run from supply of the proceedings, and that Covid-19 delayed service. The parties had also recorded a consent on October 6, 2020 lifting warrants of attachment, staying execution and referring the dispute to the Tax Dispute Resolution Division. The court held that the threshold question was the competency of the application itself: rule 86 mandatorily requires that a striking-out application be filed within 30 days of service of the notice or record of appeal. Filed more than one year and six months late, without leave, the application was fatally defective. The court declined to comment on the competency of the record of appeal, leaving that to the bench that will hear the appeal, dismissed the application, and ordered that costs abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the striking-out application, filed over one year and six months after service of the record of appeal, was competent

Holding

The application was fatally defective as it breached the mandatory 30-day limitation in rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules and was dismissed for that reason alone

Reasoning

The court held that the threshold question was the competency of the application itself. Rule 86 mandatorily requires that no application to strike out a notice or record of appeal be filed after expiry of 30 days from the date of service. The application was filed more than one year and six months out of time without leave, echoing prior decisions that such late applications are incompetent unless extension of time is sought and granted under rule 4. Having found the application defective, the court declined to comment on the competency of the record of appeal itself, leaving that to the bench hearing the appeal.

p. 3
02

Whether the court should rule on the competency of the record of appeal

Holding

The court expressly declined to determine the competency of the record of appeal, reserving that question for the bench that will hear the appeal

Reasoning

Because the striking-out application was itself incompetent, the court found it unnecessary to address the applicant's complaints about the record of appeal, including the alleged absence of certified proceedings, exhibits, decree and judgment. It deliberately left those issues open, meaning its dismissal carries no implication that the record is competent.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An application to strike out a notice of appeal or record of appeal must be filed within 30 days of service, and a late application is fatally defective unless leave to file out of time is sought and obtained
  • The power to strike out an appeal is discretionary and exercised only in plain and outright instances, based on the peculiar circumstances of each case

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated December 9, 2021 seeking striking out of the record of appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal
On appeal from
High Court
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rules 84, 87(1) and 88 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kaaya Enterprises Ltd v Commissioner of Customs & Excise", Case Analysis (2023). Notice of Motion dated December 9, 2021 (application number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/411/eng@2023-04-14

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