EVANS AURA BOAZ vs THE CHAIRMAN,COURT BROKERS LICENSING BOARD [1995] KECA 103 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal because the applicant could not show an arguable appeal with realistic chances of success.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to file a notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the applicant has an arguable appeal with likelihood of success
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant had an arguable appeal justifying extension of time
No arguable appeal: the applicant was heard by the Board and found guilty of failing to comply with rule 28(1) of the Court Brokers Rules, and there was no provision for appeal against that finding
The court found evidence that the applicant appeared before the Board and gave an explanation which was considered and rejected. The violation concerned trust over money received on execution of decrees. Complaints were lodged only after several demands. Given these facts and the absence of an appeal mechanism against the Board's finding, the applicant could not show an arguable appeal, so the discretion to extend time was declined.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time under rule 4 requires the applicant to demonstrate an arguable appeal with likelihood of success
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time was dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Judicial review motion under Order LIII rule 2 ( Civil Appeal No. 77 of 1995)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time
The applicant was heard by the Board and found guilty of violating rule 28(1) of the Court Brokers Rules; hence no arguable appeal
Costs
Application dismissed with costs (costs to the respondent)
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.
For me to be able to exercise my discretion, I must be convinced that the applicant has an arguable appeal with likelihood of success.
For those reasons, I decline to excise my discretion and order this application to be dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical errors in the judgment text ('rule of national justice' for 'natural justice'; 'excise' for 'exercise'; 'last result' for 'last resort')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "EVANS AURA BOAZ vs THE CHAIRMAN,COURT BROKERS LICENSING BOARD [1995] KECA 103 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1995). Civil Appeal No. 77 of 1995 (application under rule 4). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1995/103/eng@1995-11-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.