[2009] KECA 280 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's explanation for the two-year delay—ignorance of the law and legal procedures—was not a sufficient or acceptable reason. The applicant demonstrated awareness of procedural timelines by filing the Notice of Appeal on time, undermining his claim of ignorance. The delay was deemed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KECA 280 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: James Kamau Gachau; Respondent: Dorcas Wairimu Kamau
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 48 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- ARM Visram
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Court of Appeal Rules, Discretionary Powers, Delay in Filing, Ignorance of Law
- 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
James Kamau Gachau
Applicant
Dorcas Wairimu Kamau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the inordinate delay in filing the record of appeal.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's explanation for the two-year delay—ignorance of the law and legal procedures—was not a sufficient or acceptable reason. The applicant demonstrated awareness of procedural timelines by filing the Notice of Appeal on time, undermining his claim of ignorance. The delay was deemed inordinate, and the court, applying the principles from Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi, concluded that the application lacked merit. The court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time, emphasizing that such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not on the basis of inadequate or unconvincing reasons for delay.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for extension of time to file the record of appeal out of time is disallowed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
Civil Appli 48 of 2009
JAMES KAMAU GACHAU.............................................APPLICANT
AND
DORCAS WAIRIMU KAMAU....................................RESPONDENT
(An application for extension of time to file record of appeal out of time from the ruling
and order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Khamoni, J) dated 7th June, 2007
in
H. C. C. A. No. 271 of 2006)
*********************
RULING
This is an application (presumably under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules) for extension of time to file an appeal from the ruling and order of the superior court (Khamoni, J.) dated 2nd June, 2007. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant, James Kamau Gachau, on 12th February, 2009 at Thika.
The applicant is unrepresented, and that perhaps explains the reason why he has not identified the Rule under which this application is brought. His main reason for this two year delay is that he was unaware that there was a time limit within which to file the memorandum and record of appeal. He says he is a lay person, and is not aware of the legal procedure. Clearly, he was “aware” of the time limit within which to file the Notice of Appeal, as indeed that was filed on time!
The delay here is inordinate, and the reason for delay completely lame and unacceptable. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. Rule 4 of the Rules of this Court gives me unfettered discretion whether to extend time or not. However, that discretion has to be exercised judiciously, and in accordance with the principles set out in Leo Sila Mutiso vs Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi– Civil Application No. Nai 251 of 1997 where this Court stated:
“It is now settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary. It is also well settled 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”.
Having taken into account all the factors indicated above, I am of the view that this application has no merit, and the same is disallowed. No order as to costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 12th day of June, 2009.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
............................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR