Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Application No. NAI. 170 of 2001 (KSM. 37/97)

Joseph Barasa Boiyo v Sofia Nafula Joram [2001] KECA 189 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
20 November 2001
ALA. A. Lakha
160 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to revive a struck-out appeal because the applicant waited two months without explaining the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a brief in-chambers ruling by Lakha, J.A. of the Court of Appeal at Kisumu on an application by Joseph Barasa Boiyo for extension of time within which to lodge a Record of Appeal in an intended appeal against the judgment and decree of Tanui, J. of the High Court at Kisumu in H.C.C.C. No. 184 of 1985, delivered on 18th April 1994. The applicant had been informed by the Registry that his appeal had been struck out, but waited two months before filing the present application. The Judge characterized this period as inordinate delay and observed that it had not been explained. On that basis, the application was dismissed in its entirety, with no order as to costs. The ruling is extremely short and does not set out the enabling statutory provision, cite any authorities, or engage in extended reasoning; its operative principle is that unexplained inordinate delay in seeking to revive a struck-out appeal will result in dismissal of the extension application. The decision below (the High Court judgment) was not disturbed, as the intended appeal was never lodged. The disposition consists solely of the dismissal and the costs order, made at Kisumu on 20th November 2001.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicant's delay of two months after being informed that his appeal had been struck out was inordinate and unexplained, justifying dismissal of the application for extension of time

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the two-month delay in making the extension-of-time application was excusable

Holding

The delay was inordinate and unexplained, warranting dismissal of the application

Reasoning

The applicant learned from the Registry that his appeal had been struck out, yet waited two months before applying for extension of time. The court found this period inordinate and noted that no explanation for the delay was offered, leaving no basis on which to exercise discretion in the applicant's favour.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A delay in seeking extension of time that is inordinate and unexplained justifies dismissal of the application

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for extension of time to lodge the Record of Appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

AL
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
H.C.C.C. No. 184 of 1985
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and the Court of Appeal Rules to extend time for lodging a Record of Appeal (single Judge in chambers)

Relief refused

#

Extension of time within which to lodge the Record of Appeal

The applicant took two months after being informed his appeal had been struck out, which the court considered inordinate and unexplained delay

p. 2

Costs

No order as to 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.

After the applicant was informed by the Registry that his appeal had been struck-out the applicant took 2 months to make this application. I consider this inordinate delay. It has not been explained.
p. 2inordinate and unexplained delay
The application therefore is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
p. 2final orders and costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The ruling does not state the statutory or rule-based basis for the extension-of-time jurisdiction, and the coram shows a single Judge in chambers deciding what may be a matter normally for the full Court; the brevity of the ruling leaves the enabling provision unstated

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (3)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joseph Barasa Boiyo v Sofia Nafula Joram [2001] KECA 189 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Civil Application No. NAI. 170 of 2001 (KSM. 37/97). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/189/eng@2001-11-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.