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 AppealOtherNot stated in the judgment (application dated 1st May 2024)

Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited & another v Kenya Farmers Association Limited (Civil Application E047 of 2024) [2024] KECA 955 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
26 July 2024
627 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal confirmed that only a full bench, not a single judge, can grant permission to appeal, and time extensions must wait until that permission is secured.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited and Joseph M. Gikonyo trading as Garam Investments filed an omnibus application dated 1st May 2024 before the Court of Appeal, invoking Rules 41(1)(b)(ii), 44(2), 45(3) and 77(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules. They sought leave to appeal against a ruling of the Environment and Land Court (Mwangi, J.) delivered on 8th March 2023, and an extension of time of 14 days within which to file the record of appeal. Lesiit, JA, sitting as a single judge, observed that the application was omnibus: the prayer for leave to appeal is, under Rule 53(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, excluded from a single judge's jurisdiction and can only be heard by a full bench, whereas the extension-of-time prayer would ordinarily fall to a single judge under Rule 4. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya v Kenya Airways Limited and Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi Ruscone, the judge reiterated that a party must invoke the specific provisions conferring jurisdiction and that omnibus applications are improper. However, the extension prayer was premature because the applicants had no automatic right of appeal and there was no appeal before the Court until leave was granted; leave had to be obtained first. Declining to strike out the application on this technicality, and guided by Article 159(2) of the Constitution on substantive justice and access to justice, the judge directed that the application be placed before a full bench for determination of the prayer for leave to appeal. No costs order was made.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether a single judge can entertain an omnibus application combining a prayer for leave to appeal (reserved for a full bench) and a prayer for extension of time (within a single judge's jurisdiction)
  2. 2.Whether the prayer for extension of time to file the record of appeal could be determined before leave to appeal was granted

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a single judge may determine an omnibus application containing a prayer for leave to appeal

Holding

No. Rule 53(2) expressly excludes applications for leave to appeal from the single-judge jurisdiction; such applications must go to a full bench.

Reasoning

The judge noted that the first prayer (leave to appeal) is exclusively for a full bench while the second (extension of time) would ordinarily befit a single judge. Faced with a combined application, the judge declined to sever and determine the extension prayer, holding it premature because no appeal existed until leave was granted. Rather than strike out the application on this technicality, and in deference to Article 159(2) on substantive justice, the whole application was referred to a full bench.

p. 1
02

Whether extension of time could be granted in the absence of leave to appeal

Holding

No; the prayer was premature because the applicant had no automatic right of appeal and had to obtain leave first.

Reasoning

The judge held that since the appeal against the ELC ruling required leave, there was no appeal properly before the Court on which an extension of time to file the record could operate. The leave must be obtained first, and only then may extension of time be sought. The judge nonetheless refrained from striking out the application, choosing to preserve the applicant's access to justice by referring it to the full bench.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for leave to appeal must be heard by a full bench of the Court of Appeal and does not fall within the jurisdiction of a single judge under Rule 53
  • Where an applicant has no automatic right of appeal, extension of time to file the record cannot be granted before leave to appeal is obtained
  • A party must move the court under the specific provision of law conferring the jurisdiction invoked; omnibus applications with ambiguous prayers are improper

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application be placed before a full bench of the Court of Appeal for determination of the prayer for leave to appeal the decision of the Environment and Land Court

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

Single judge declined to determine the omnibus application, noting that leave to appeal must be heard by a full bench and that extension of time was premature in the absence of a granted appeal, and referred the application to a full bench.

In the result, I direct that the application be placed before a full bench of this Court for determination of the prayer for leave to appeal the decision of the superior court.p. 2
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 41(1)(b)(ii), 44(2), 45(3) and 77(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, with Rule 53 considered; leave to appeal under the applicable appellate regime

Relief refused

#

Leave to appeal against the ruling of the Environment and Land Court (Mwangi, J.) delivered on 8th March 2023

An application for leave to appeal cannot be heard by a single judge; it is reserved for a full bench under Rule 53(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules

p. 1

Extension of time to file the record of appeal within 14 days of the grant of leave

Premature, as there was no appeal before the Court until leave was first obtained

p. 2

Costs

No order as to costs was made in the judgment.

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

In the result, I direct that the application be placed before a full bench of this Court for determination of the prayer for leave to appeal the decision of the superior court.
p. 2Final order - reference to full bench
Order one seeks leave to appeal against the ruling of the Environment and Land Court, which can only be heard by a full bench of this Court.
p. 1Leave to appeal is a full-bench application
The reason being there is no appeal before the Court, as the applicant did not have an automatic right of appeal to this Court.
p. 2Prematurity of extension of time before leave
Instead of striking out the application on the technicality highlighted above, and in order to save the applicant time and grant him access to justice without delay or saddling him with technicalities contrary to the spirit prescribed under Article 159(2) of the Constitution, I will save it for consideration by a full bench.
p. 2Substantive justice over technicality

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The heading and case number of the application are omitted from the record; the judgment opens with blank numbered paragraphs and the parties are identified only in the body text

minor

No costs order appears in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited & another v Kenya Farmers Association Limited (Civil Application E047 of 2024) [2024] KECA 955 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 1st May 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/955/eng@2024-07-26

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