Edward Akong’o Oyugi v Zacharia Okoth Obado, Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Jairus Obaga-County Returning Office Migori County
The bottom line
#A 21-month delay to file a review is too long unless you have a very good excuse.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court dismissed an application to extend time for filing a review because the applicant waited 21 months without a valid reason. The court said any delay must be justifiable and reasonable. Blaming your lawyer without evidence is not enough. This case confirms that courts will not excuse long, unexplained delays in legal proceedings.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the delay of 21 months in filing the application for review is justifiable and reasonable
- 2.Whether this Court is functus officio having given its final determination
- 3.Whether the application satisfies the principles laid down in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v. IEBC & 7 Others
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of 21 months in filing the application for review is justifiable and reasonable.
The delay of 21 months is unjustifiable, unreasonable, and inordinate.
The applicant contended that the delay was caused by his former advocate's failure to act on instructions, but the court found no evidence to support this claim. The court applied the principles from Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v. IEBC & 7 Others, which require that any delay in filing an application for extension of time must be justifiable and reasonable. The 21-month delay was deemed excessive and unexplained, leading to dismissal.
Whether this Court is functus officio having given its final determination.
The court did not reach this issue because the application was dismissed on other grounds.
The 1st respondent argued that the court was functus officio, but the court did not address this argument as it dismissed the application based on the inordinate delay and failure to satisfy the Salat principles.
Legal principles established
#- An application for extension of time must satisfy the Salat principles, including that the delay must be justifiable and reasonable.
- A delay of 21 months is inordinate and unjustifiable unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
- Blaming a former advocate for delay requires supporting evidence; mere allegations are insufficient.
- Costs follow the event – the losing party pays the winning party's costs.
- The court may dismiss an application on one ground without addressing other arguments.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion Application dated 25th April, 2016 is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents as costs follow the event.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 23(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Act, and Rule 21 and 23 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012 (as amended)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file an application for review of part of this Court’s Judgment in Petition No. 4 of 2014
The delay of 21 months is unjustifiable, unreasonable, and inordinate; the application does not satisfy the principles in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v. IEBC & 7 Others.
Costs
The Notice of Motion Application dated 25th April, 2016 is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents as costs follow the event.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Notice of Motion Application dated 25th April, 2016 is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents as costs follow the event.
The delay of 21 months is unjustifiable and unreasonable in the circumstances. The said delay is also inordinate.
The application does not satisfy the principles laid down in the case of Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others, Appl. No. 16 of 2014.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Time limits for review applications
When seeking extension of time to file a review, you must provide a clear and justifiable reason for the delay. A 21-month delay is presumptively inordinate. Ensure you have evidence to support claims of advocate negligence. The Salat principles require strict compliance; failure will result in dismissal with costs.
Act promptly on legal matters
If your business is involved in litigation, do not delay in filing necessary applications. A 21-month wait to challenge a court order is unacceptable. Even if you blame your lawyer, the court expects you to follow up. Delays can lead to losing your right to challenge and additional costs.
Don't wait too long to act
If you need to ask a court to review a decision, do it quickly. Waiting 21 months without a good reason means your application will likely be thrown out. You cannot simply blame your lawyer without proof. Act promptly to protect your rights.
Frequently asked questions
#What is the time limit for filing a review in Kenya?+
There is no fixed statutory time limit, but any delay must be justifiable. The Supreme Court in this case said a 21-month delay is too long. You should file as soon as possible and explain any delay with evidence.
Can I blame my lawyer for a delay in filing a court application in Kenya?+
Not automatically. The court requires evidence that your lawyer failed to act on your instructions. In this case, the applicant's claim was rejected because he provided no proof. You must show you were diligent.
What are the Salat principles for extension of time in Kenya?+
From Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v. IEBC, the principles require that the delay be justifiable and reasonable, the application be made without undue delay, and the applicant show good faith. The court considers the length of delay and reasons.
What happens if I file a review application too late in Kenya?+
The court will dismiss it with costs. In this case, a 21-month delay was deemed inordinate and unjustifiable. You lose the chance to challenge the decision and may have to pay the other side's legal fees.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Edward Akong’o Oyugi v Zacharia Okoth Obado, Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Jairus Obaga-County Returning Office Migori County", Case Analysis (2017). Civil Application 7A of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2017/23/eng@2017-03-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.