[2008] KECA 287 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing and serving the notice of appeal and record of appeal. The applicant was aware of the need to appeal and could not solely blame his advocates for the delay. The court emphasized that it is the duty of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KECA 287 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Luka Ndutu; Respondent: Daniel Wambua Ndavi
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 317 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Laches, Advocate Negligence
- 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
Peter Luka Ndutu
Applicant
Daniel Wambua Ndavi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing and serving the notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the delay in seeking extension of time is inordinate and unexplained.
- 3 Whether the applicant can solely blame his advocates for the delay or shares responsibility.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing and serving the notice of appeal and record of appeal. The applicant was aware of the need to appeal and could not solely blame his advocates for the delay. The court emphasized that it is the duty of every litigant to keep in touch with their advocate and to ensure that their instructions are being carried out. The persistent and unexplained delays, including a 17-month gap before filing the present application, amounted to laches. In the circumstances, the court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant and dismissed the application with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPLICATION) NO. 317 OF 2007
PETER LUKA NDUTU.................................................APPLICANT
AND
DANIEL WAMBUA NDAVI......................................RESPONDENT
(Application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal and lodge an appeal out of time from a ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Kasango, J) dated 8th July, 2004
in
H.C.C.S. NO. 56 OF 2004)
****************
RULING
PETER LUKA NDUTU, the applicant, asks me under rule 4 of the Rules of the Court to exercise my discretion in his favour and grant him leave to file and serve a notice of appeal and also, a record of appeal out of time.
The applicant, according to his affidavit in support of the application and the submissions of his learned counsel Mr. Musyoki, avers that the omission and the delay in filing and serving the notice of appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules was not of his own making but that of his counsel who failed to lodge the necessary documents.
The judgment the subject matter of the intended appeal was delivered on 8th July 2004 by Kasango, J. It is common ground that the applicant consequent thereto did not file a notice of appeal, but instead chose to engage in what the learned Judge, Emukule, J termed:
“---------- a rather circuitous and convoluted route sought by the concurrent application, a multiplicity of orders, which in my considered judgment the defendant can only obtain through an appeal, and not a court of concurrent jurisdiction.”
Despite this fitting advice, the applicant’s counsel took no step to mount an appeal and allegedly have passed over the brief to a different counsel without the knowledge of the applicant.
On 16th August, 2005 the new advocate (and the applicant says without his consent) filed an application in this court on 16th August, 2005 seeking similar orders as sought herein. However, that application being Civil Application No. Nai. 239 of 2005 was withdrawn on 6th June, 2006.
In my view, I cannot agree with the applicant that he was unaware that all his advocates had not carried out his instructions by seeking extension of time to lodge an appeal. It was within his knowledge that his advocates were reluctant to appeal on his behalf despite advice. In this regard he cannot blame them solely. He, too, is to blame. Further, it was not proper for him to keep away from his said advocates for too long. It is the duty of every litigant to keep in constant touch with his advocate.
Again, the applicant has not offered any explanation as to why his new advocate took 17 months to file this application. I agree with Mr. Kimuli that the delay herein is inordinate and has not been explained.
The applicant has been guilty of laches at every stage since the decision of Kasango, J was delivered and all these have not been explained to my satisfaction.
In view of the rampant, persistent and unexplained delays, I am of the view that this is not a proper case for me to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant. In reaching this conclusion, I have also considered the possible prejudice that may be caused to the applicant if the application succeeds.
I dismiss the application with costs.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 17th day of April, 2008.
P.K. TUNOI
..............................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a
true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR