Beatrice Lukalo & another v Tom Lukalo [2015] KECA 668 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to excuse a six-month delay in seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, confirming every day of delay must be explained.
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 applicants should be granted extension of time to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal judgment of 11th July 2014
- 2.Whether the delay of about six months in bringing the application was explained
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was excusable
The delay of approximately six months, including two months between drafting and filing the application, was inordinate and wholly unexplained, so extension of time was refused.
Even accepting the applicants only learned of the judgment on 1st September 2014, no explanation covered the period from 25th September 2014, when the application was dated, to 24th November 2014, when it was filed. The court reiterated that applicants must explain every aspect of delay, citing its prior decisions. The total six-month unexplained delay defeated the application.
The standard for extension of time applications
Good practice requires such applications to be brought within a reasonable time even absent a statutory time limit, and the applicant must account for every period of delay.
The court observed there is no fixed time limit for such applications but imposed a reasonable-time requirement as good practice. It invoked its settled jurisprudence, citing Kenya Airports Authority v. Timothy Nduvi Mutungi and Alshabahi Ali Mohammed v. Maritime Freight Co. Ltd, that every aspect of delay must be explained.
Legal principles established
#- An application for extension of time must be brought within a reasonable time, and the applicant must explain every aspect of the delay.
- In any application for extension of time, the applicant has to explain every aspect of delay.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal
- Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2011
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Rules 4, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 of the Court of Appeal Rules; Articles 95(2)(a), (d) & (e) and 163(3)(b) & (4)(b) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
Inordinate and unexplained delay of about six months in bringing the application
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs (costs awarded to the respondent).
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.
Although, to our knowledge, there is no time limit set for bringing such applications, good practice demands that such an application should nonetheless be brought within a reasonable time.
In this case even if we accept that the applicants did not know of this Court's said judgment until 1 st September 2014, as counsel for the respondent quite correctly observed, no explanation has been given for the failure to file this application for a period of about four months.
In the circumstances, we find no merit in this application and we accordingly dismiss it with costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Beatrice Lukalo & another v Tom Lukalo [2015] KECA 668 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Civil Application No. 72 of 2014 (UR No. 51/2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2015/668/eng@2015-03-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.