[2003] KECA 131 (KLR)
The court found that while the initial delay in filing the notice and record of appeal could be explained by the confusion over the judgment date and the time taken to obtain the file from the former advocate, there was an unexplained period of over 15 months between the applicant's discovery of the judgment date...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] KECA 131 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Wilson K. Muniu; Respondent: Rosemary Wanjiku Mungai
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 97 of 2002
- 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 to the respondent
- Judges
- E Owuor
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Judicial Discretion
- 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
Wilson K. Muniu
Applicant
Rosemary Wanjiku Mungai
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 and satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the notice and record of appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Rule 4 to grant extension of time in the absence of an explanation for the entire period of delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the initial delay in filing the notice and record of appeal could be explained by the confusion over the judgment date and the time taken to obtain the file from the former advocate, there was an unexplained period of over 15 months between the applicant's discovery of the judgment date and the filing of the application for extension. The court held that its discretion under Rule 4 must be exercised judicially and cannot be invoked where there is no explanation for the entire period of delay. As the applicant failed to provide any reason for the substantial lapse of time after becoming aware of the judgment, the application lacked merit and was dismissed with...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for extension of time to file notice and record of appeal is dismissed.
- The applicant shall pay costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: OWUOR, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 97 OF 2002
BETWEEN
WILSON K. MUNIU .........................................................APPLICANT
AND
ROSEMARY WANJIKU MUNGAI .............................RESPONDENT
(Application for extension of time to file Notice and
record of appeal out of time in an intended appeal
from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at
Nairobi (Rawal, J) dated 25th January, 2001
in
H.C.C.C. No. 110 of 199
***************************
R U L I N G
The applicant, Wilson K. Muniu, comes to this Court under the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules of this Court (the Rules) seeking an order to extend time for him to file both, a notice and record of appeal, to enable him to appeal against the judgment of Rawal, J. delivered on 25th January, 2001 by which he was ordered to pay the sum of Kshs.1,207,800/= damages together with costs and interest arising from the death of the respondent's husband.
The grounds upon which the application is brought are many but in my view they all don't relate to the central issue of why the applicant did not file his notice and record of appeal within the prescribed time in the rules.
In that regard, the relevant grounds are that:
"The failure by the applicant to lodge a Notice of appeal within the stipulated period was inherent."
In that it was:
"Due to the factors beyond the control of the applicant as they were only advised of the judgment it is intended to be appealed against on the eleventh day of the said judgment thus rendering it impractical for the applicant's insurers to search for their relevant file and instruct advocates in good time".
Consequently, the blame for the notice and record of appeal not being filed on time, lies on the advocate's laps.
The affidavit filed in support of the application attempts to explain the delay. It is deponed that the applicant was represented in the superior court by a different advocate in H.C.C.C. No. 110 of 2000. A judgment was entered in the matter on 25th January, 2001, the applicant was not informed about it till the 5th day of February, 2002 by letter attached to a copy of the judgment that was not dated. One Maurice Ambuchi, a Legal Assistant to the applicant's Insurers, depones that he was under the impression that the judgment had been delivered the previous day, therefore they had 13 days in which to look for the file and instruct another advocate. He instructed another advocate the following day to lodge the appeal. The record indicates that several letters were exchanged in an effort to obtain the file from the former advocate.
They only came to learn of the fact that judgment had been delivered on 25th January, 2001 upon receipt of their new counsel's letter on 15th February, 2001.
Upon receipt of their file from the former advocate they came to learn that nothing had been done. Had the judgment been dated, they would have been able to lodge the notice on time.
Attached to the affidavit are several copies of letters exchanged between the applicant and his advocates which clearly indicates that the delay from the date of judgment, to the date when the delivery took place, that is 15th February, 2001 was indeed genuine. I see no problem in accepting that as a genuine reason.
There is then the period that lapsed from the 15th of February, 2001 to 2nd May, 2002 when this application was filed. That is a period of over 15 months. There is no indication from the record, or affidavit or submissions to me as to why this application was not filed as soon as the mistake was discovered. While my discretion in terms of rule 4 is very wide, it must be exercised judicially. AND where there is no explanation, I have no material upon which that discretion can be exercised. This Court has ruled on several times that where there is no explanation there can be no indulgence.
On that basis, I find that there is no merit in this application and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 17th day of January, 2003.
E. OWUOR
...............
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR