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 AppealOtherCivil Appeal (Application) 30 of 2017

Chanase Investments Limited v Keruzi Enterprises Limited & 7 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 30 of 2017) [2025] KECA 1754 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
24 October 2025
FSF SichaLE
258 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

#

The Court of Appeal refused to hear Chanase Investments' application because it showed no proof it had served the other side, and ordered it relisted afresh.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short procedural order of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered by Sichale, JA, on 24 October 2025 in Civil Appeal (Application) 30 of 2017. The applicant, Chanase Investments Limited, had moved the Court by a motion dated 3rd June 2025 seeking extension of time to file an application to reinstate its appeal, which relates to Nairobi High Court Civil Suit No. 3818 of 1994. When the motion came up for hearing on 1st October 2025, the Court observed from the record that counsel for the applicant appeared in person and that there were no responses on record from any of the eight respondents. More significantly, there was no proof of service of the motion on the respondents. In those circumstances the Court held it had no option but to take the motion out of the hearing list. It directed the registry to relist the motion afresh. No substantive determination was made on the extension-of-time application, no decision below was reviewed or disturbed, and no costs order appears in the order as reproduced. Because this is a purely interlocutory procedural order on case management and service, it carries no ratio that would bind lower courts on any substantive question; the only proposition capable of citation is that an unproved service and absence of responses will cause a listed application to be taken out and relisted afresh.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the applicant's motion dated 3rd June 2025, seeking extension of time to file an application to reinstate the appeal, should be heard and determined despite absence of proof of service and absence of responses from the respondents

Key legal issues

#
01

Effect of absence of proof of service on an application listed for hearing

Holding

The court took the motion out of the hearing list and directed that it be relisted afresh by the registry.

Reasoning

When the matter came up for hearing, the court noted that the record showed counsel appearing in person for the applicant and no responses on record from any of the respondents. With no responses and no proof of service of the motion, the court considered itself unable to proceed, and exercised its case-management power to take the motion out and have it relisted afresh. The determination is procedural and sets no substantive precedent.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • An application listed for hearing cannot proceed where there is no proof of service on the respondents; it will be taken out of the hearing list.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The motion dated 3rd June 2025 is taken out of the hearing list
  2. 2.The motion to be relisted afresh by the registry

The bench

#

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

FS
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
High Court
Nairobi High Court Civil Suit No. 3818 of 1994
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over its own registry/process (application for leave to file an application for reinstatement of an appeal; appeal listed as Civil Appeal (Application) 30 of 2017)

Relief refused

#

Hearing and determination of the motion dated 3rd June 2025 seeking extension of time to file an application to reinstate the appeal

There were no responses from the respondents and no proof of service of the motion

p. 1

Costs

No order as to costs was made in the order reproduced 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 absence of responses from the respondents and in absence of proof of service of the motion, I have no option but to take it out.
p. 1effect of failure of service on hearing of application
The motion to be relisted afresh by the registry.
p. 2final orders

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The name of the single judge is printed inconsistently in the record (coram reads 'F SICHALE, JA' while the signature block reads 'F. SICHALE').

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chanase Investments Limited v Keruzi Enterprises Limited & 7 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 30 of 2017) [2025] KECA 1754 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal (Application) 30 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1754/eng@2025-10-24

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