[2019] KESC 87 (KLR)

[2019] KESC 87 (KLR)

The Supreme Court held that while the principle that mistakes of counsel should not be visited upon the client is recognized, the applicants failed to provide any evidence that they had instructed their advocates to file the notice of appeal or that the advocates misled them regarding certification proceedings....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KESC 87 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lither Peter Muia; Applicant: Rose Peter Muia; Respondent: Zuena Ngando Kababu
Court
Supreme Court
Court Station
Supreme Court of Kenya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Application 19 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal and Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
EN Wanjala, NS Ndungu
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Certification Proceedings, Advocate Mistake, Appellate Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Certification Proceedings Advocate Mistake Appellate Jurisdiction

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lither Peter Muia

Applicant

Rose Peter Muia

Applicant

Zuena Ngando Kababu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal and Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court should grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing was sufficiently explained and attributable to the applicants' advocates.
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court is the proper forum for the application for extension of time intended to commence certification proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that while the principle that mistakes of counsel should not be visited upon the client is recognized, the applicants failed to provide any evidence that they had instructed their advocates to file the notice of appeal or that the advocates misled them regarding certification proceedings. Furthermore, the court found that the application for extension of time was intended to facilitate certification proceedings, which should properly be commenced in the Court of Appeal, not the Supreme Court. The delay of one and a half years was deemed inordinate and unexplained. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for extension of time and ordered the applicants to...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 21st June, 2019 and filed on 24th June, 2019 is hereby dismissed.
  • The applicants shall bear the costs of this application.