SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Route 3 Company Limited & another v Nairobi City County & another (Civil Appeal (Application) 188 of 2019) [2025] KECA 315 (KLR) (21 February 2025) (Ruling)

[2025] KECA 315 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
315
Citation
[2025] KECA 315 (KLR)
Decided
21 February 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureApplication for rehearing of dismissed motionCoramK. Bor, Madan
Holding

The court dismissed the application as the applicants failed to demonstrate the reason for the delay and the appeal would not be rendered nugatory without the determination of the application.

Facts

The applicants filed a notice of motion on June 24, 2024, seeking to vary or set aside the court's previous dismissal of their motion dated October 17, 2019, due to non-attendance, and to reinstate the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was filed within the applicable statute's parameters
  2. Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory without the determination of the application
  3. Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
  4. Whether the court has discretion to vary any order and adhere to substantive justice
  5. Whether the dismissal of the applicants' advocate caused the delay

Reasoning

The court found that the applicants did not provide sufficient evidence of the reason for the delay and that the appeal would not be rendered nugatory without the determination of the application.

Outcome

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The court dismissed the application and did not vary or set aside the previous order dismissing the applicants' motion.
  • The court did not reinstate the application dated October 17, 2019.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Court of Appeal Rules
  • Article 48
  • Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case