KAMERE & CO. ADVOCATES vs PRISCILLA OJUKA [2000] KECA 293 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave a law firm extra time to appeal because the court registry failed to supply documents the firm had paid for.
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 an extension of time within which to file a Notice of Appeal
- 2.Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file and serve the Record of Appeal in the intended appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the failure of the superior court registry to supply certified copies of the judgment and proceedings justified an extension of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
The application was granted notwithstanding that the applicant's earlier Notice of Appeal had been struck out, because the documents remained unavailable through no fault of the applicant.
The applicant had received notice that the judgment and proceedings were ready, paid for them, and went to collect them, only to find they were still being checked. The court found this an unsatisfactory state of affairs attributable to the registry, directed the Registrar to remedy it, and allowed the extension even though counsel for the respondent had conceded the application.
Legal principles established
#- A superior court registry's failure to supply certified and signed copies of a judgment and proceedings, despite payment, is a ground on which an extension of time to appeal may be granted, and registries must attend to such failures.
Court orders
#- 1.Extension of time granted for the applicant to file his Notice of appeal within 7 days from the date of the ruling
- 2.The applicant to file the appeal within 30 days from the date of filing the Notice of appeal
- 3.The Registrar of the superior court directed to look into the matter with a view to supplying the applicant the judgment and proceedings he is waiting for
- 4.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court (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.
This application is therefore granted. The applicant shall file his Notice of appeal within 7 days from today's date and thereafter file the appeal within 30 days from the date of filing the Notice of appeal.
To say the least, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs. The Registrar of the superior court is hereby directed through a copy of this Ruling to look into this matter with a view to supplying the applicant the documents he is waiting for.
Issues in the judgment
#The costs order appears anomalous: the respondent conceded the application, yet costs were awarded to the respondent. The judgment does not explain this.
The judgment does not state the case number, the parties' full names, or the decision appealed from, limiting identification of the matter.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "KAMERE & CO. ADVOCATES vs PRISCILLA OJUKA [2000] KECA 293 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2000). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/293/eng@2000-05-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.