Romanus Okeno v Bank of Baroda [2005] KECA 48 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal granted an extension of time to appeal because the applicant genuinely didn't know when judgment was delivered.
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 filing the Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal should be extended under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
- 2.Whether the delay was inordinate and sufficiently explained
- 3.Whether the intended appeal is arguable
- 4.Whether the respondent would be prejudiced if the extension is granted
Key legal issues
#Factors governing extension of time under rule 4
The discretion is unfettered but guided by four considerations: length of delay, reason for delay, arguability of the intended appeal, and prejudice to the respondent.
The court restated the settled principles from Leo Sila Mutiso and subsequent authorities, then applied them to the facts: judgment was delivered on a date unknown to the applicant and his advocate, so the delay from 26th January 2005 was explained once counsel learned of the judgment in March 2005 and promptly sought proceedings.
Whether the delay was excusable on the facts
Yes. The applicant and his then advocate were unaware of the date judgment was delivered; the contention was uncontroverted and once the applicant learned of the judgment the appeal process was promptly commenced.
The court accepted the affidavit of the previous advocate and the letter to the Deputy Registrar as evidence that neither applicant nor counsel knew the judgment date. There was a change of advocates, and upon learning of the judgment counsel immediately requested proceedings and judgment and commenced the appeal process, satisfying the court that discretion should favour the applicant.
Legal principles established
#- In a rule 4 application the single Judge exercises an unfettered discretion, guided by the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.
- An applicant under rule 4 must show the delay was not inordinate and was sufficiently explained, that the intended appeal is arguable, and that no prejudice would befall the respondent.
Court orders
#- 1.Extension of time granted for lodgement of the Notice of Appeal
- 2.The applicant to file and serve the Notice of Appeal within seven (7) days from the date of the ruling
- 3.The Record of Appeal to be lodged and served within 30 days from the date the Notice of Appeal is filed
- 4.Costs of the application to be in the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court (superior court)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules; Section 3 and Section 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act / Civil Procedure Rules
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.
For the foregoing reasons this application is allowed and I direct that the applicant do file and serve the Notice of Appeal within seven (7) days from the date hereof and the Record of Appeal be lodged and served within 30 days from the date the Notice of Appeal is filed.
the matters which are to be considered whether to grant an extension of time are first the length of the delay, the reason for that delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding and lastly the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted.
the discretion granted under rule 4 of the Rules of this Court to extend the time for lodging an appeal is, as is well known, unfettered
Issues in the judgment
#The coram identifies only a single Judge of Appeal deciding the application, though the styled heading and parties' names are not fully set out in the judgment as provided; the applicant is referred to as the applicant rather than by name in the caption.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Romanus Okeno v Bank of Baroda [2005] KECA 48 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2005). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2005/48/eng@2005-12-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.