Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 3rd March 2016 (Civil Application)· [2016] KECA 108 (KLR)

Richard Wefwafwa Songoi v Ben Munyifwa Songoi [2016] KECA 108 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
25 November 2016
1,124 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that time spent waiting for the court registry to prepare proceedings doesn't count as delay when filing an appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a single-judge application under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010 seeking an extension of time to file and serve a Notice and Record of Appeal against a High Court judgment delivered on 19th March 2015 in a land dispute. The applicant, Richard Wefwafwa Songoi, filed a Notice of Appeal and requested proceedings promptly, but the registry supplied incomplete proceedings without the judgment on 27th January 2016, and a certificate of delay was only issued on 22nd February 2016. The respondent opposed, arguing the delay was intentional and that the intended appeal had no chance of success as the suit had been found res judicata. The court restated the settled Rule 4 principles from Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi: the discretion is unfettered but exercised judiciously, considering the length of delay, reason for delay, chances of success, and prejudice to the respondent. Applying Rule 82, the court excluded the period taken by the registry to prepare the proceedings, leaving only 36 days of delay - within the 60 days allowed for filing the Record of Appeal - making the extension technically unwarranted. Nonetheless, the court allowed the application and ordered the Record of Appeal to be filed within fourteen days, with each party bearing their own costs. The decision was delivered at Eldoret on 25th November 2016.

Key legal issues

#
01

Computation of delay where proceedings were supplied late by the registry

Holding

The period between the request for proceedings (30th March 2015) and their supply (27th January 2016) is excluded under Rule 82, leaving a 36-day period which was within the 60 days allowed for filing the Record of Appeal.

Reasoning

The court applied Rule 82, which requires the registrar to certify the time taken to prepare and deliver proceedings, excluding that period from the computation of delay. Once that exclusion was applied, the residual delay was only 36 days, within the 60-day window. The court found the applicant had diligently pursued the proceedings, writing reminders to the registry, and that the incomplete proceedings and missing judgment were attributable to the registry, not the applicant.

p. 3
02

Principles governing extension of time under Rule 4

Holding

The discretion to extend time is unfettered but must be exercised judiciously according to the established principles: length of delay, reason for delay, chances of success, and prejudice to the respondent.

Reasoning

The court restated the settled principles from Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi, quoting the four factors. Although the court found no extension was strictly warranted after proper computation, it nonetheless allowed the application and granted 14 days to file the Record of Appeal, demonstrating the judicious exercise of discretion in favour of a diligent appellant.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The power to extend time under Rule 4 is an unfettered discretion that must be exercised judiciously, having regard to the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of success of the appeal, and prejudice to the respondent.
  • Under Rule 82, the period taken by the registrar to prepare and deliver proceedings to an appellant is excluded when computing delay in filing the Record of Appeal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Record of Appeal be filed within the next fourteen (14) days from the date of the order
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal Rules 2010Rule 4
  • Court of Appeal Rules 2010Rule 82

Cases cited (1)

  • Leo Sila Mutiso V. Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi
    Civil Application No. Nai 251 of 1997
On appeal from
High Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Richard Wefwafwa Songoi v Ben Munyifwa Songoi [2016] KECA 108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Notice of Motion dated 3rd March 2016 (Civil Application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2016/108/eng@2016-11-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.