Dorcas Ajwang Adede v Rukia Ahamed Farah & another [2001] KECA 226 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal excused an elderly woman's late appeal filing, accepting her age and financial hardship as good reasons for the delay.
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 delay in lodging the application for leave to appeal was inordinate.
- 2.Whether, in all the circumstances narrated in the supporting affidavit, the application dated 2nd March, 2001 should be granted as prayed in prayer 1.
- 3.What orders as to costs and the period for lodgement of the application should issue.
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in lodging the application for leave to appeal was inordinate.
The court found the delay not inordinate.
The court assessed the delay in light of the applicant's personal circumstances. It accepted that the applicant is an aged lady who may have had difficulties obtaining funds to meet the costs of lodging an appeal or application. It also expressly accepted the circumstances narrated in the affidavit of Mr. Kajwang'. On that combined basis the court was satisfied that the delay was not inordinate and that the application for leave could proceed.
What relief and directions should issue on the application dated 2nd March, 2001.
The application was granted as prayed in prayer 1, with no order as to costs, and a direction that the application be lodged within 10 days.
Having found the delay not inordinate and accepted the circumstances narrated in Mr. Kajwang's affidavit, the court granted the application in the terms of prayer 1 of the application dated 2nd March, 2001. It made no order as to costs and directed that the application in question be lodged within the next 10 days, fixing a short deadline so that the leave process was pursued without further delay.
Legal principles established
#- In assessing whether the delay in lodging an application for leave to appeal is inordinate, the court may take into account the applicant's personal circumstances, including age and difficulty in obtaining funds to meet the costs of lodging an appeal or application.
- Where the delay is found not to be inordinate and the explanatory circumstances are accepted, the court may grant the application for leave as prayed and fix a short period within which the application must be lodged.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 2nd March, 2001 granted as prayed in prayer 1.
- 2.No order as to costs.
- 3.The application in question to be lodged within the next 10 days.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the certified copy. The extract shows only that the court was determining an application for leave to appeal, identified solely as 'the applications dated 2nd March, 2001'.
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.
I am satisfied that the delay in not lodging the application for leave to appeal is not inordinate.
The applicant is an aged lady and I accept that she may have had difficulties in obtaining funds to meet the costs of lodging an appeal or application.
I grant the application as prayed in prayer of 1 of the applications dated 2nd March, 2001. I make no order as to costs. I direct that the application in question be lodged within the next 10 days.
Issues in the judgment
#The certified copy does not state the names of the parties or the case number; the application is identified only by its date, so the brief cannot be matched to a named dispute.
The ruling nowhere identifies the decision intended to be appealed from, the court below, or the provision under which leave is sought.
The extract is a short single-judge ruling on an interlocutory application with no background, submissions or cited authorities; it ends immediately after the delivery clause.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dorcas Ajwang Adede v Rukia Ahamed Farah & another [2001] KECA 226 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Not stated in the certified copy (application dated 2nd March, 2001). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/226/eng@2001-03-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.