[2018] KECA 661 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had taken prompt steps to appeal by instructing his former advocates to file a notice of appeal on the same day the judgment was delivered. The failure to serve the notice of appeal was attributed to the advocates' mistake, not the applicant's fault. The delay in filing the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KECA 661 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Mutua Kandau; Respondent: Ndoo Matenzwa
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 219 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice and Record of Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- DK Musinga
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Service of Notice
- 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
John Mutua Kandau
Applicant
Ndoo Matenzwa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice and Record of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to file and serve the notice and record of appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing and serving the notice of appeal was excusable.
- 3 Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the extension is granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had taken prompt steps to appeal by instructing his former advocates to file a notice of appeal on the same day the judgment was delivered. The failure to serve the notice of appeal was attributed to the advocates' mistake, not the applicant's fault. The delay in filing the application for extension of time was not inordinate, and there was no evidence that the respondent would suffer prejudice if the extension was granted. The court also noted that the intended appeal was not prima facie frivolous. In the absence of opposition from the respondent, the court exercised its discretion to grant the extension sought.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Leave is granted to the applicant to file and serve the notice and record of appeal out of time.
- The notice of appeal shall be filed and served within fourteen days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(MUSINGA, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 219 OF 2017
BETWEEN
JOHN MUTUA KANDAU.......................APPLICANT
VERSUS
NDOO MATENZWA............................RESPONDENT
(Application for extension of time to file and serve notice and record of appeal from the judgment of the Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Garissa (E.C. Cherono, J.) delivered on 31stJuly, 201
in
H.C.C.C. No. 26 of 2012)
*******************
RULING
1. This is an application for extension of time to file and serve a notice and record of appeal out of time. It was brought under rules 4, 75, 77 and82of theCourt of Appeal RulesandArticle 159(2) (d)of theConstitution of Kenya, 2010.
2. In his affidavit in support of the application, the applicant deposed that he was the respondent in the matter that gave rise to this application,Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2012 at Garissa, where he was represented by thefirm ofNgala Mulonzya & Company Advocates; that judgment in the said matter was delivered on 31stAugust, 2017; that he was dissatisfied with the judgment and immediately thereafter instructed his advocates to appeal against the decision; that his advocates prepared a notice of appeal and filed it on 1stAugust, 2017 and even gave the applicant a copy of the same.
3. However, sometimes in September 2017 the applicant went to his advocates’ chambers and learnt that the notice of appeal had not been served. That is when he decided to instruct M/S Olando Udoto & Okello Advocatesto act for him in place of his erstwhile advocates, through whom he filed this application.
4. The applicant believes that his intended appeal is meritorious and has exhibited a draft memorandum of appeal. He also believes that the respondent shall not be prejudiced if this application is granted.
5. When the application came up for hearing on 17th April, 2018, onlythe applicant’s advocate,Mr. Okello, was in attendance. The respondent’s advocates,M/S C.K. Nzili & Company, were served with the application sometimes in October 2017. They were also served with a hearing notice, albeit late, on 16thApril, 2018. The respondent did not file any replying affidavit.
6. The principles that guide this Court in an application of this nature are well settled. The Court exercises its unfettered discretion and in so doing, it considers the period of delay; the reason for the delay; the chances of success of the intended appeal if the application is granted; and the degree of prejudice that the respondent is likely to suffer if the application is allowed, among other considerations. See STANLEYKAHORO MWANGI & 2 OTHERS v KANYAMWI TRADING COMPANY LIMITED[2015] eKLR.
7. The applicant herein instructed his former advocates to file an appealagainst the High Court’s decision. That they did on the same day the impugned decision was delivered. As he went back to his home, the applicant must have been confident that the process of appeal was well in motion since he had in his hands a copy of the notice of appeal that had been lodged in the High Court at Garissa.
8. The applicant cannot be faulted for his former advocates’ mistake in failing to serve the notice of appeal and to prepare the record of appeal.
9. The length of the delay was not inordinate, the application for extension of time was filed on 25th September, 2017.
10. A perusal of the impugned judgment and the draft memorandum ofdefence does not give me a prima impression that the intended appeal isfrivolous. I cannot say more regarding the chances of success of the intended appeal.
11. Lastly, there is nothing to show that the respondent shall be prejudiced if the orders sought by the applicant are granted. Consequently, I hereby grant leave to the applicant to file and serve the notice and record of appeal out of time.
12. The notice of appeal should be filed and served within fourteen days from the date of delivery of this ruling. The record of appeal should be filed and served within thirty days from the date of service of the notice of appeal. As the respondent did not file any replying affidavit or oppose the application, I make no order as to costs of the application.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 20thday of April, 2018.
D.K. MUSINGA
....................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is atrue copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR