NDIMO FARMERS CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD vs SAMUEL WACHIRA & OTHERS [1997] KECA 150 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal granted an extension of time to file an appeal record, ruling that a short delay does not defeat an appeal when court delays caused it.
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 the record of appeal despite a short delay
- 2.Whether the delay from 10th June, 1997 to 3rd July, 1997 constituted sufficient reason to refuse the extension
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of approximately 23 days in filing the record of appeal warranted refusal of the extension of time
The delay was not sufficient reason to refuse the extension given the extraordinary 981 days it took to obtain certified copies of the proceedings and ruling from the superior court.
The court weighed the applicant's failure to file the record within 60 days of receiving the proceedings against the fact that obtaining certified copies had taken 981 days. Against that backdrop, the few days of delay between 10th June and 3rd July 1997 were trivial. The court emphasized that its Rule 4 power is unfettered and exercisable without prior consideration by the superior court, and granted a further 30 days.
Legal principles established
#- Under Rule 4, the Court of Appeal has unfettered discretion to grant extension of time to file a record of appeal, and this power does not require the application to have first been considered by the superior court.
- A short delay in filing the record of appeal, where the applicant has taken substantial time (981 days) to obtain certified copies of proceedings from the superior court, does not constitute sufficient reason to refuse an extension of time.
Court orders
#- 1.Extension of time granted to file the record of appeal for another 30 days from the date of the ruling
- 2.Applicant to pay the respondents' costs for that day assessed at 2,500/- within 14 days, failing which execution to issue
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- The superior court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time)
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 exercise of my unfettered powers under Rule 4 I grant the application for extension of time to file the record of appeal for another 30 days from now.
I do not think that the delay of some few days that is from 10th June, 1997 to 3rd July, 1997 when the application was filed, should constitute sufficient reason why I should not exercise my unfettered powers in this application
which unlike other applications, does not require to have been first considered by the superior court
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is a short ruling that does not state the case number, the parties' names, or the lower court case details, limiting identification of the matter.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "NDIMO FARMERS CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD vs SAMUEL WACHIRA & OTHERS [1997] KECA 150 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1997). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1997/150/eng@1997-11-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.