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 OutNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KECA 1049 (KLR)

Eunice Wanjiru Gathithi The Legal Representative of The Estate of The Late Fredrick Gathithi Kabue v Cannon Assurance Kenya Limited

Court of Appeal of Kenya
9 June 2025
WKW. Karanja
150 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out a combined application, confirming that requests for extension of time and striking out an appeal must be filed separately in sequence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a brief single-Judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi delivered by W. Karanja, JA, on 9th June 2025. The applicant had lodged a Notice of Motion dated 18th March 2025 containing two prayers: one for extension of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, and another for striking out an appeal under Rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules. The Judge characterised the motion as an omnibus application that improperly mixed single Judge matters with full bench matters. Observing that the Court's position on omnibus applications is well established, the Judge struck out the application entirely and without adjudicating either prayer on its merits. The applicant was given guidance on the correct procedural path: the extension-of-time application should be filed before a single Judge and, if refused, a striking-out application may then be made before a three-Judge bench. No costs order was made and no authorities were cited. The decision does not disturb any underlying decision below; it is purely a procedural ruling on the form of the application, and its binding significance lies in confirming that omnibus applications combining single Judge and full bench prayers are impermissible in the Court of Appeal and will be struck out.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an omnibus application combining a Rule 4 extension-of-time prayer and a Rule 86 striking-out prayer is properly before the Court

Holding

No - it was struck out; the proper course is to file the extension-of-time application before a single Judge and, if refused, bring the striking-out application before a 3 Judge bench

Reasoning

The Court treats the mixing of single Judge matters (extension of time under Rule 4, reserved to a single Judge) with full bench matters (striking out an appeal under Rule 86) as procedurally impermissible. The established practice is to strike out such omnibus applications and direct the litigant to pursue each prayer through the correct forum in sequence.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Omnibus applications that mix single Judge matters with full bench matters are not entertained; the Court's position on them is settled and such applications will be struck out

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The omnibus Notice of Motion dated 18th March 2025 is struck out
  2. 2.Liberty for the applicant to file the extension of time application before a single Judge
  3. 3.If extension of time is refused, an application for striking out may be made before a 3 Judge bench
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 and Rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Eunice Wanjiru Gathithi The Legal Representative of The Estate of The Late Fredrick Gathithi Kabue v Cannon Assurance Kenya Limited", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1049/eng@2025-06-09

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