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 1050 (KLR)

The Kenya Alliance Insurance Company Limited v Universities Academic Staff Union (uasu) & 3 others

Court of Appeal of Kenya
11 June 2025
WKW. Karanja
192 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 an application for extension of time because it cited a court rule that does not exist.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short single-Judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered by W. Karanja, JA, on 11 June 2025. The applicant, supported by an affidavit sworn by Linda Njenga, its Legal Manager, sought two forms of relief: an extension of time to file a reference against the decision of Mumbi Ngugi (JA), sitting as a single Judge, which had awarded costs to the 1st respondent; and a stay of proceedings. The notice of motion was expressed to be premised on Rule 57(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, sections 3A, 3 and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, and Article 164(3)(a) of the Constitution. The court observed at the outset that no Rule 57(4) exists in the Court of Appeal Rules. It further noted that the supporting affidavit erroneously described the 3rd respondent, rather than the 1st respondent, as the party awarded costs by the single Judge. However, because the 1st respondent had not raised these defects in its replying affidavit, the court declined to dismiss the application on its merits. Instead, it struck the application out as fatally defective and made no order as to costs. No authorities were cited and no separate opinions were written. The ruling is interlocutory in character and carries limited precedential weight beyond its implicit caution that applications must be anchored on existing rules of court.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an application premised on a non-existent rule is sustainable

Holding

The application was struck out as fatally defective because it cited Rule 57(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, a rule that does not exist

Reasoning

The notice of motion was expressed to be premised on Rule 57(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, but no such rule exists. Although the court could have dismissed the application on its merits, it elected to strike it out as fatally defective. The court also noted an internal inconsistency in the supporting affidavit regarding which party was awarded costs, but declined to dismiss on that basis since the 1st respondent did not raise the issue.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • An application citing a non-existent rule of court is fatally defective and may be struck out

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion is struck out for being fatally defective
  2. 2.No order as to costs
On appeal from
Court of Appeal of Kenya (decision of a single Judge)
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 57(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules (cited by the applicant, though the court notes no such rule exists), sections 3A, 3 and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, and Article 164(3)(a) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "The Kenya Alliance Insurance Company Limited v Universities Academic Staff Union (uasu) & 3 others", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1050/eng@2025-06-11

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