[1997] KECA 140 (KLR)
The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate and primarily attributable to the applicants, who changed advocates multiple times and failed to act with due diligence. The explanations provided did not sufficiently account for the prolonged inaction, and the certificate of delay could not cure...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1997] KECA 140 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Mbugua Dedan Gachumi; Applicant: James Gichuru Dedan Gachumi; Respondent: Geoffrey Mbugua Dedan
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 224 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- AM Akiwumi
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Inordinate Delay
- 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
Joseph Mbugua Dedan Gachumi
Applicant
James Gichuru Dedan Gachumi
Applicant
Geoffrey Mbugua Dedan
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient reason for the extension of time to serve the Notice of Appeal and file the record of appeal.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate and attributable to the applicants.
- 3 Whether the certificate of delay could be relied upon given procedural irregularities.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate and primarily attributable to the applicants, who changed advocates multiple times and failed to act with due diligence. The explanations provided did not sufficiently account for the prolonged inaction, and the certificate of delay could not cure the defect due to procedural non-compliance. The court held that such inordinate and unexplained delay does not warrant the exercise of its discretion to extend time under Rule 4, and therefore dismissed the application.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for extension of time is dismissed.
- The respondent shall have the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 224 OF 1997
BETWEEN
1. JOSEPH MBUGUA DEDAN GACHUMI
2. JAMES GICHURU DEDAN GACHUMI......................APPLICANTS
AND
GEOFFREY MBUGUA DEDAN....................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
This is an application brought under Rule 4 for the extension of time for the service of Notice of Appeal and the filing of the record of appeal. The reason for non action in these matters has been blamed on the applicant's previous advocate Onyango Otieno who though he filed a notice of appeal within time, had let the applicants down in not collecting the record of proceedings and judgment which he had applied for, from the Registry when he had been informed that they were ready for collection on 21st November, 1996. But by 26th November, 1996 some 5 days later, the applicants had obtained the services of another firm of advocate, Oyatta & Associates who filed a notice of appointment on that latter date. This firm of advocates too did nothing. For though the proceedings and judgment were paid for on 18th February, 1997 and were ready for collection on 6th March, 1997, they were not collected until 18th August, 1997, when the applicants had again instructed a third firm of advocates to act for them. The applicants seem to have been shopping from one firm of advocates to another and the delay exhibited in not filing the appeal within time, as illustrated by the Certificate of Delay which is attached to the affidavit in support of the application, even if it can be relied upon, shows to my mind, that the total delay that has occurred and which to my mind is inordinate within the context of the surrounding circumstances, can be attributed to the applicants. What is more, this inordinate delay has not otherwise been properly accounted for.
As regards the fact that the certificate of delay cannot be relied upon for the purpose of Rule 31(1) and (2) of the Rules of this court because the request letter for it was not copied to the respondent, I would say that, that by itself, if I had not found that there had been inordinate delay on the part of the applicants, would not have prevented me from exercising my unfettered discretion under Rule 4. In the result, the application is dismissed solely on the ground that the delay in taking the necessary steps to institute the appeal by the appellants, is inexcusable and inordinate. The respondent will have his costs for this application.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 10th day of December, 1997.
A. M. AKIWUMI
............................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR.