PRISCILLA NYAWIRA GITUNGU vs KABITU KANJA [2002] KECA 137 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed late filing of appeal documents because the other side would suffer no harm — that test decides such requests.
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 extension of time to lodge a record of appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the respondents would suffer any prejudice if the extension were granted
Key legal issues
#Extension of time to lodge a record of appeal out of time
The application was allowed because the respondents raised no objection and no prejudice was demonstrated
The second and third respondents' counsel did not object to the application, and the first respondent, appearing in person, left the matter to the court. The court found no prejudice would be suffered by the respondents if the extension were granted, and on that basis allowed the application and set a filing deadline of the end of November 2002.
Legal principles established
#- Where respondents suffer no prejudice, an application for extension of time to lodge a record of appeal out of time may be allowed
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time is allowed
- 2.The applicant is directed to file the record of appeal by the end of November, 2002
- 3.Costs will be in the intended appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to extend time for filing a record of appeal (rule not specified in the judgment)
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 see no prejudice which could be suffered by the respondents if the application is allowed. In the circumstances I allow the application and direct that the applicant does file the record of appeal by the end of November, 2002.
Costs will be in the intended appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, the names of the parties, or the rule under which the extension application was brought
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "PRISCILLA NYAWIRA GITUNGU vs KABITU KANJA [2002] KECA 137 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/137/eng@2002-10-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.