The Standard Limited v Mong'are Gekonga, Omari Momanyi t/a Gekong'a Momanyi Advocates
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to give a newspaper more time to appeal a libel award because it delayed nearly ten months without explanation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Criteria for extension of time under Rule 4
Applicant must show merit in the appeal, no undue prejudice to the respondent, and that delay is not inordinate
The court restated the established Rule 4 criteria from Wasike v Swara and Leo Sila Mutiso, requiring merit, absence of prejudice and absence of inordinate delay before exercising its unfettered discretion to extend time.
Inordinate and unexplained delay
A five-month unexplained delay before seeking extension, and an overall delay of almost ten months, is inordinate and inexcusable
The notice period expired on 25 July 2003; the applicant took no effective step until 10 December 2003 and filed the present application on 3 May 2004. With no explanation offered for the five-month gap, the delay could not be excused and serious intention to appeal was not demonstrated.
Limits of the High Court's power under section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act
The High Court may extend time for giving notice of intention to appeal, but has no power to extend time for filing an application in the Court of Appeal to lodge a Notice of Appeal
Section 7 empowers the High Court to extend time for giving notice of intention to appeal, applying for leave, or obtaining a certificate of fitness. The consent order of Kimaru, J. extended the wrong period and conferred no valid extension on the applicant.
Merit of the intended appeal against the damages award
The applicant failed to demonstrate merit; it did not identify triable issues, explain its grievance, or file a draft memorandum of appeal
Counsel's bare belief that triable issues existed was insufficient. The applicant did not show the trial judge acted on wrong principles or awarded excessive damages, so the intended appeal was not shown to be non-frivolous.
Prejudice to the respondent
The respondent would be unduly prejudiced because the decretal sum had already been paid
The respondent deposed that the decretal sum of Shs.2,600,000 had been paid; the court agreed that allowing the extension would cause undue prejudice, one of the disqualifying factors under the Rule 4 criteria.
Legal principles established
#- The High Court has power under section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to extend time for giving notice of intention to appeal, but not to extend time for filing an application in the Court of Appeal to lodge a Notice of Appeal
- An appellate court will not normally interfere with a trial court's assessment of damages unless the judge acted on wrong principles, awarded excessive or inordinately low damages, or considered irrelevant matters or failed to consider relevant ones
Court orders
#- 1.Application for extension of time dismissed with costs to the respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- H.C.C.S. No. 542 of 1997
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
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.
- Richard Kipmalel Chesimet v Nandi County Government (Environment & Land Case 99 of 2015) [2021] KEELC 3670 (KLR)[2021] KEELC 3670 (KLR)12 Apr 2021
- Marangu Rucha & another v Bernadette Muthina Nzioki & 8 others [2015] KECA 582 (KLR)[2015] KECA 582 (KLR)3 Jul 2015applied
- RAMESH SHAH v KENBOX INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2007] KECA 352 (KLR)[2007] KECA 352 (KLR)27 Apr 2007
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "The Standard Limited v Mong'are Gekonga, Omari Momanyi t/a Gekong'a Momanyi Advocates", Case Analysis (2005). Civil Application No. NAI. 131 of 2004 (Nak.8/04). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2005/352/eng@2005-02-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.