George Gikubu Mbuthia v Jimba Credit Corporation Ltd & another [2002] KECA 231 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to revive a decade-old appeal because the applicant could not explain why he waited so long to file.
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 inordinate delay in filing and serving the notice of appeal and record of appeal from the ruling of Tank, J. dated 18 February 1992 was satisfactorily explained.
- 2.Whether the single judge erred in principle in refusing to grant the extension of time.
- 3.Whether there was any reason or material upon which the full Court, on reference, could interfere with the single judge's decision.
Key legal issues
#Whether the full Court should interfere, on reference under rule 54(1)(b), with a single judge's refusal to extend time to file and serve a notice of appeal and record of appeal.
No. The single judge did not err in principle or otherwise; the applicant showed no reason to interfere and no material upon which the Court could act, so the reference was dismissed with costs.
The application came by way of a reference under rule 54(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, requiring the full Court to review the single judge's refusal of 21 June 2002. The Court considered all the aspects involved, satisfied itself that the reference had no merit, and deferred to the single judge's exercise of discretion. Interference was warranted only if the single judge had erred in principle or if material existed justifying intervention; neither was demonstrated. The reference therefore failed and was dismissed with costs.
Whether the delay in lodging the intended appeal from the ruling of 18 February 1992 was inordinate and satisfactorily explained.
The delay was inordinate and was not satisfactorily explained, which was fatal to the extension application.
The intended appeal lay from a ruling of Tank, J. delivered on 18 February 1992, yet the notice and record of appeal remained unfiled some ten years later when the application was pursued. The single judge found the delay inordinate and unexplained, a finding the full Court expressly endorsed. The applicant advanced nothing before the reference court to explain the delay or displace that finding. Unexplained inordinate delay is a principal ground for refusing extension of time, and it disposed of the application.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for extension of time to appeal must satisfactorily explain any inordinate delay; where the delay is inordinate and unexplained, the extension will be refused.
- On a reference from a single judge's decision, the full Court will not interfere unless the single judge erred in principle or there is material upon which the Court can act to interfere.
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is dismissed.
- 2.The reference is dismissed with costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya (decision of a single judge)
- Civil Application No. Nai. 375 of 2001
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 54(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules - reference from the decision of a single judge of the Court of Appeal
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time from the ruling and order of Tank, J. in H.C.C.C. No. 937 of 1986 dated 18 February 1992
The delay was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained; the single judge did not err in principle, and the applicant showed no reason or material justifying interference on reference.
Costs
The reference is dismissed with 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.
Accordingly and for the reasons above stated this reference fails and it is dismissed with costs.
We would say at the outset and without any hesitation that having fully and carefully considered all the aspects involved we are satisfied that this reference has no merit.
The learned single judge found with respect that there was inordinate delay which had not been satisfactorily explained.
Nor did Mr. Mbuthia persuade us that there was any reason to interfere with the decision of the learned single judge or that there was any material upon which this Court can act to interfere.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George Gikubu Mbuthia v Jimba Credit Corporation Ltd & another [2002] KECA 231 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Civil Application No. Nai. 375 of 2001. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/231/eng@2002-11-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.