Julie Mukami Kanyoko & 2 others v Samuel Mukua Kamere & another [2015] KECA 398 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out a notice of appeal because the appellants kept missing deadlines and gave no credible explanation, ending that appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out for persistent non-compliance with the Court's rules
The notice of appeal was struck out. The respondents filed and served the notice late, never applied for certified proceedings, filed no memorandum of appeal, and gave no explanation for their dilatory conduct.
The Court exercised its unfettered but judicious discretion. The respondents exceeded the timelines fixed by Warsame, J, conceded late service, failed to apply for certified proceedings or a record of appeal, and offered only an unconvincing explanation of a misplaced file. The Court invoked the overriding objective in sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Ratnam v Cunarasamy, holding that rules of court must prima facie be obeyed and that litigation must come to an end.
Whether the extension of time granted by Warsame, J was properly granted despite the applicants' non-attendance
The Court declined to fault the extension of time, reasoning that the applicants' advocates, though aware of the hearing, failed to attend and the judge could reasonably infer no objection.
The applicants' advocates conceded service of the hearing notice but claimed non-service of the application itself. They wrote letters to the Deputy Registrar but did not appear before Warsame, J, and did not explain that non-attendance. The Court agreed the judge could infer there was no objection, though it noted it had information that could have impacted the exercise of his discretion.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking extension of time must demonstrate the period of delay, explain it, and show the intended appeal is arguable without going into merits; the court must consider all relevant circumstances.
- The rules of court must prima facie be obeyed; a party in breach has no unqualified right to an extension of time.
- An appellant is not entitled to rely on the proviso to rule 84(1) unless the application for a copy of proceedings was in writing and served on the respondent.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 19th December 2014 is allowed
- 2.The notice of appeal dated 26th November 2014 is struck out
- 3.Costs of the application to the applicants
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- ELC Civil Suit No. 229 of 2011
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 84, 42(1) and 43(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules; sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Julie Mukami Kanyoko & 2 others v Samuel Mukua Kamere & another [2015] KECA 398 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Civil Application No. 324 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2015/398/eng@2015-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.