Unnamed Applicant v Respondent (Extension of Time Application)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to extend appeal deadlines because the applicant offered no explanation for a two-year delay.
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 Court should enlarge time to file and serve the Notice of Appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the Court should enlarge time to file the record of appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether enlargement of time should be granted where no explanation for the delay is offered
The application was dismissed because the applicant gave no reason for failing to serve the Notice of Appeal within time and no explanation for the lapse of roughly two years before moving the Court.
The Notice of Appeal was filed within time on 7th July 1992, so enlargement for filing did not arise. Service, however, was late and no reason was given. Counsel could not say when the default was discovered, and the application was not made until 20th July 1994. With no explanation for the delay since July 1992, the Court, though its discretion was unfettered, had no material on which to exercise it in the applicant's favour.
Legal principles established
#- Even where the discretion under rule 4 is unfettered, an applicant for enlargement of time must place material before the Court explaining the delay; absent such explanation the Court will decline to exercise its discretion.
Court orders
#- 1.The application is 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
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Rules of this Court (enlargement of time)
Relief refused
#Enlargement of time to file Notice of Appeal out of time
A Notice of Appeal had already been filed within time on 7th July 1992, so the first prayer did not lie
Enlargement of time to serve the Notice of Appeal and to file the record of appeal
No explanation was given for the delay since July 1992 and no material was placed before the Court to justify the exercise of discretion
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs
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.
In the circumstances although my discretion is unfettered i do not have before me any material to do so. I am accordingly disinclined to exercise my discretion. The application, is therefore, dismissed with costs.
A Notice of Appeal however was filed on 7th July, 1992 within time. Therefore the first prayer of the application does not lie.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is a certified copy and contains typographical errors, e.g. 'Rulos of the Court' for 'Rules of the Court' and lowercase 'i' for 'I'.
The names of the parties and the case number are not stated anywhere in the certified copy of the ruling.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Unnamed Applicant v Respondent (Extension of Time Application)", Case Analysis (1996). Not stated in the judgment. Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.