MACHARIA KABURU vs BETH WANJIRU KARIMIRA [1990] KECA 24 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Sufficiency of the explanation for inordinate delay in filing a notice of appeal
The application was refused because the alleged disagreement with the former advocate did not cause the delay; counsel in fact continued to act by filing a review application and an application for stay of execution and injunction after the ruling
The judgment records that after the ruling of 22nd July 1988, Kamere & Co. continued to act for the applicant, filing an application for review on 15th August 1988 and for stay of execution and injunction on 7th November 1988. The respondent contended the decision to appeal was an afterthought. The court also noted the proceedings concerned an arbitration award whose setting aside had been dismissed, and that the choice to appeal came over a year later. On all the circumstances the discretion was withheld.
Delay of more than one year in seeking extension of time
The application, filed on 15th September 1989 against a ruling of 22nd July 1988, involved a delay of more than one year, which weighed against the exercise of discretion in the applicant's favour
The court observed that the application itself was filed more than a year after the ruling, and that the applicant, rather than appealing the dismissal of his application to set aside the arbitration award, pursued review and stay. The cumulative delay and the nature of the matter led the single judge to decline to exercise the discretion in the applicant's favour and to dismiss the application with costs.
Legal principles established
#- The discretion to extend time for lodging a notice of appeal will not be exercised in favour of an applicant who offers an explanation for delay that is contradicted by the record, particularly where counsel continued to act after the decision sought to be appealed
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time is refused
- 2.The application is dismissed with costs
- On appeal from
- The superior court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time under Rule 74)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "MACHARIA KABURU vs BETH WANJIRU KARIMIRA [1990] KECA 24 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1990). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1990/24/eng@1990-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.