[2024] KECA 1348 (KLR)
The court found that the notice of appeal was lodged within time and that the delay in filing the application for extension of time was not inordinate. The applicants provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, namely, the failure of their previous lawyers to lodge the appeal as instructed. While the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KECA 1348 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peterson Wanjohi Gichangi; Applicant: Jephithah Kinyua Gichangi; Respondent: Juliana Wangithi Murage; Respondent: Peter Muriithi Murage; Respondent: James Muthii Murage; Respondent: Reuben Kimani Murage; Respondent: Eliud Maina Murage
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application E071 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- S ole Kantai
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Succession Disputes
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peterson Wanjohi Gichangi
Applicant
Jephithah Kinyua Gichangi
Applicant
Juliana Wangithi Murage
Respondent
Peter Muriithi Murage
Respondent
James Muthii Murage
Respondent
Reuben Kimani Murage
Respondent
Eliud Maina Murage
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient reason for extension of time to file notice and record of appeal out of time in a succession matter.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate or excusable.
- 3 Whether the applicants' failure to file the appeal on time due to their advocate's mistake should be excused.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the notice of appeal was lodged within time and that the delay in filing the application for extension of time was not inordinate. The applicants provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, namely, the failure of their previous lawyers to lodge the appeal as instructed. While the court expressed doubt about the chances of the appeal succeeding due to the lack of evidence that leave to appeal had been sought or obtained, it held that this was only one consideration among several in such applications. The court exercised its discretion to allow the application, permitting the applicants to lodge the notice and record of appeal out of time, with costs to be in the...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Applicants to lodge notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days.
- Applicants to file record of appeal within fourteen (14) days thereafter.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
Gichangi & another v Murage & 4 others (Civil Application E071 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1348 (KLR) (3 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KECA 1348 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Nyeri
Civil Application E071 of 2024
S ole Kantai, JA
October 3, 2024
Between
Peterson Wanjohi Gichangi
1st Applicant
Jephithah Kinyua Gichangi
2nd Applicant
and
Juliana Wangithi Murage
1st Respondent
Peter Muriithi Murage
2nd Respondent
James Muthii Murage
3rd Respondent
Reuben Kimani Murage
4th Respondent
Eliud Maina Murage
5th Respondent
(An application for extension of time to lodge Notice of Appeal and Leave to file appeal out of time from the Judgment of the High Court at Kerugoya (L.W. Gitari, J.) dated 4th April, 2024 in HC Succession Cause No. 352 of 2013. )
Ruling
1. The applicants Peterson Wanjohi Gichangi and Jephithah Kinyua Gichangi bring this Motion under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules amongst other provisions of law where they pray that I be pleased to grant leave for them to lodge notice of appeal dated 14th April, 2024 and file a record of appeal out of time.
2. In grounds in support of the Motion and in their supporting affidavit they say that they filed summons for revocation of a grant in Kerugoya High Court Succession Cause No. 352 of 2013 after realising that they had been left out of distribution of the estate of their grandfather; the summons were dismissed in a judgment delivered on 4th April, 2024; they instructed their former lawyers to lodge an appeal but this was not done; the mistakes of the lawyer should not be visited upon them; that the intended appeal raises substantial issues that need to be heard and determined.
3. There is a replying affidavit of Juliana Wangithi Muruga, the 1st respondent, who has authority of the 2nd to 5th respondents, who says that the application is an afterthought and a waste of courts’ time; that the applicants should have filed an appeal on time as they fully participated in the matter at the High Court; that draft Memorandum of Appeal “… should fall on its arrival as it offends the law of succession ACT”, that the application should be dismissed.
4. I have seen judgment of Gitari, J. delivered on 4th April, 2023 where the applicants’ application was dismissed. I have also seen notice of appeal dated 18th April, 2024 lodged with the Deputy Registrar at Kerugoya the same day and draft Memorandum of Appeal where 9 grounds of appeal are set out.
5. I have also seen and considered written submissions filed by both sides.
6. The principles which apply in an application of this nature were well set out in the oft-cited case of Leo Sila Mutiso vs. Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi [1999] 2 EA 231 as follows:"It is now well settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary. It is also well stated that in general the matters which this Court takes into account in deciding whether to grant an extension of time, are first, the length of the delay, secondly, the reason for the delay, thirdly (possibly) the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted, and fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted."
7. I note that notice of appeal was lodged within time. The application before me is dated 7th August, 2024, about 4 months after judgment. I do not think that there is inordinate delay and there is a reasonable explanation for the delay where the previous lawyers did not lodge appeal on time as instructed by the applicants. I entertain a doubt on chances of the appeal succeeding considering that the judgment was in respect of a succession dispute and I have not been told whether the applicants sought or obtained leave to appeal which is a necessary pre-requisite in succession matters. That is however only one of the considerations in this kind of application and the respondents can take it up later if they are so minded.
8. I allow the application. Let the applicants lodge notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days and record of appeal within fourteen (14) days thereafter. Costs of this Motion will be in the appeal.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NYERI THIS 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024. S. OLE KANTAI...................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the originalSignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR