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 AppealDismissedCivil Application (reinstatement application) arising from Appeal No. 30 of 2017

Chanase Investments Ltd v Keruzi Enterprises Ltd & 7 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 30 of 2017) [2026] KECA 399 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
27 February 2026
GOG. V. Odunga
634 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

#

A Kenyan company's bid to revive its dismissed appeal failed because the Court of Appeal found its reinstatement application unnecessary and premature, leaving the appeal dismissed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
On 5th May 2025 a bench of Gatembu, Jamila Mohammed and Muchelule JJA dismissed Chanase Investments Ltd's Appeal No. 30 of 2017 for non-appearance under rule 105(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, with no orders as to costs, neither party appearing despite service of notice. By notice of motion dated 3rd June 2025 the applicant sought enlargement of time within thirty days to file an application to reinstate the appeal. In a ruling delivered at Nairobi on 27th February 2026, Odunga JA set out rule 105(1) and rule 105(3), which require a restoration application to be lodged within thirty days of the decision, or within thirty days of a party first hearing of the decision where notice of hearing was not served. The supporting affidavit of Muia Kilonzo explained that technical problems with his phone prevented receipt of the hearing notice, and that he learned of the dismissal only on the hearing date when he attended the registry. The court calculated that the last day for a restoration application was 4th June 2025 and found the application, dated 3rd June 2025, to have been within time. Paradoxically, it then concluded that the application was unnecessary and premature and dismissed it with no order as to costs. The practical effect is that the applicant's reinstatement effort failed, and the appeal remains dismissed for non-appearance. No authorities were cited and no costs were awarded against the applicant.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the applicant's application dated 3rd June 2025 was filed within the thirty-day period prescribed by rule 105(3) for restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-appearance

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an extension of time was needed to apply for restoration under rule 105(3)

Holding

No; the application dated 3rd June 2025 was within the thirty-day period from the 5th May 2025 dismissal, the last day being 4th June 2025 by the court's calculation (apparently treating the window as not yet closed), so the application was unnecessary and premature and was dismissed

Reasoning

Rule 105(3) requires a restoration application to be made within thirty days after the decision, or, for an unserved party, within thirty days of first hearing of the decision. The appeal was dismissed on 5th May 2025 and the application was dated 3rd June 2025. The court computed the last day for the application and concluded the applicant was still within time, rendering the extension-of-time prayer unnecessary and premature.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an appeal is dismissed for non-appearance under rule 105(1), an application for restoration must be made within thirty days after the decision of the Court, and an application made within that window is in time and does not require an extension of time

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 3rd June 2025 is dismissed with no order as to costs

The bench

#

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

GO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 105(1) as read with rule 105(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Relief refused

#

Enlargement/extension of time within 30 days to file an application to reinstate Appeal No. 30 of 2017

The court found the application unnecessary and premature because the thirty-day window under rule 105(3) had not yet expired when it was filed

p. 2

Costs

Dismissed with no order as to costs

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.

When this appeal was called out for hearing this morning, there was no appearance for either party despite notice of hearing having been served. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non-appearance under rule 105(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules with no orders as to costs.
p. 1Dismissal of appeal for non-appearance under rule 105(1)
In the premises, I find that this application was unnecessary and premature.
p. 2Finding that a restoration application made within the rule 105(3) window needs no extension of time
It is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
p. 2Final orders and costs

Issues in the judgment

#
material

Internal contradiction: the court computed that the application was still within time under rule 105(3), yet dismissed it as 'unnecessary and premature' rather than treating it as a properly-timed restoration application; no case name or appeal number is given for the decision under rule 105(1), and the ruling is authored by a single judge (Odunga JA) while the original dismissal was by a three-judge bench

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chanase Investments Ltd v Keruzi Enterprises Ltd & 7 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 30 of 2017) [2026] KECA 399 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application (reinstatement application) arising from Appeal No. 30 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/399/eng@2026-02-27

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