WANDUS EMPORIUM & 2 OTHERS v NGUGI GITONGA & ANOTHER [1997] KECA 321 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal threw out Wandus Emporium's late appeal because the company couldn't properly explain the six-month delay in filing its appeal documents.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the appeal was satisfactorily explained
The delay was not satisfactorily explained; the applicant's letters requesting proceedings were not copied to the respondents and no certificate of delay was produced to vouch for when proceedings were obtained
The applicant requested the High Court proceedings by letter dated 3rd April 1996 but did not copy that letter to the respondents or their advocates, so the Court's rules did not permit reliance on it to explain the delay. The applicant claimed to have obtained proceedings on 26th April 1996 but produced no certificate of delay. A later letter of 17th July 1996 seeking criminal proceedings was likewise not copied to the respondents. The application itself was not filed until 22nd October 1996, some six months after the notice of appeal.
Whether criminal proceedings not before the High Court could form part of the record of appeal
They could not, without prior leave of the court under Rule 29 to adduce additional evidence
The applicant's advocate explained the delay by reference to a search for criminal proceedings thought necessary for a successful appeal. Counsel conceded those proceedings were not part of the High Court record. The court held that material not before the trial judge could not be included in the record of appeal without prior leave under Rule 29, and no such leave had been sought or obtained.
Legal principles established
#- A letter requesting proceedings that is not copied to the respondents or their advocates cannot be relied upon by an applicant to explain delay in filing an appeal
- Evidence intended to be included in a record of appeal that was not before the High Court requires prior leave of the court under Rule 29 before it may be included
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents, to be paid by Wandus Emporium
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. No. 781 of 1995
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "WANDUS EMPORIUM & 2 OTHERS v NGUGI GITONGA & ANOTHER [1997] KECA 321 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1997). Civil Application No. Nai. 316 of 1996. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1997/321/eng@1997-01-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.