MAU WEST LIMITED v KENYA CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERIES LIMITED [2000] KECA 358 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to extend appeal filing time because the applicant offered no credible, documented reason for the delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Exercise of the single Judge's discretion under Rule 4 to extend time for filing an appeal record
The discretion was refused because the applicant gave no valid reason for the delay: its evidence on when it was supplied with the proceedings and judgment was contradictory, and the delay of over two months after obtaining the documents was unexplained.
The Court found the applicant's affidavit contradicted its own correspondence: the letter of 23rd June 1998 said proceedings were supplied on 4th June, while the affidavit said they were supplied on 15th July 1998. The receipt produced was undated and for a different amount. The applicant also failed to obtain the Registrar's certificate of delay under the proviso to Rule 81, which would have settled the confusion, and made no attempt to explain the further two-month delay before filing the motion.
Whether a certified copy of the judgment is required to mount a competent appeal
No; only the decree or order extracted from the judgment or ruling needs to be certified. The applicant's reliance on the judgment 'going for certification' did not excuse the delay.
The Court stated that the proviso to Rule 81 requires only that a letter be written to the Registrar within thirty days of the decision and copied to the opposite side, whereupon time certified by the Registrar as necessary for preparing proceedings is excluded from the sixty-day period. Since certification of the judgment itself is unnecessary for mounting an appeal, the applicant's explanation that the judgment went for certification was no justification.
Legal principles established
#- Although the discretion under Rule 4 is wholly unfettered, a valid reason must be shown to support its exercise
- A party does not need a certified copy of the judgment to mount a competent appeal; only the decree or order extracted from the judgment or ruling needs to be certified
- A litigant seeking extension of time should obtain the Registrar's certificate of delay under the proviso to Rule 81 to establish the period excluded from computation
Court orders
#- 1.The motion dated 7th September, 1998 and lodged in Court on 6th October, 1998 is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs of the motion
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- HCCC No. 1319 of 1992
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (discretion of a single Judge to extend time)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- L Z Engineering Construction Limited v Trade Bank Limited (In Liquidation) [2000] KECA 182 (KLR)[2000] KECA 182 (KLR)17 Oct 2000followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "MAU WEST LIMITED v KENYA CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERIES LIMITED [2000] KECA 358 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2000). Not stated in judgment (arising from HCCC No. 1319 of 1992). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/358/eng@2000-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.