Jubilee Insurance Company (K) Limited v Daniel Maingi Muchiri [2016] KECA 796 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to forgive an 11-day delay in filing a notice of appeal because the insurance company only acted once its assets faced attachment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of about 11 days in filing the notice of appeal was satisfactorily explained
The delay was not satisfactorily explained; the pronouncement of the ruling was sufficient to trigger the filing of a notice of appeal, and the notice was in fact precipitated by the issuance of warrants of attachment rather than a genuine desire to appeal
The applicant's advocate claimed to be waiting for a typed copy of the ruling, but the last part of the ruling was read in court, which was enough to start the appeal process. The record showed warrants of attachment issued on 6th August 2015 preceded the filing of the notice on 12th August 2015, and the present application was itself filed late, over three weeks after the notice. The filing was thus driven by execution, not a genuine desire to appeal.
Whether the intended appeal is arguable
The intended appeal is a second appeal governed by section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act; the applicant did not attempt to show any of the stipulated grounds existed, so prima facie the appeal neither lies nor has merit
The intended appeal was a second appeal, and the applicant did not identify any of the grounds specified in section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Further, the applicant had the opportunity in the subordinate court to file a replying affidavit and produce documents from its records to controvert the Police Abstract showing cover, and did not demonstrate that the exemption circumstances in section 10(2) of the Act existed.
Legal principles established
#- The Court has unfettered discretion to extend time, but the applicant must satisfy the court that the intended appeal is not frivolous, that the extension will not cause undue prejudice to the respondent, and that the delay has not been inordinate
- Pronouncement of the last part of a ruling is sufficient to set in motion the process of filing a notice of appeal; waiting for a typed copy does not excuse the delay
Court orders
#- 1.The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Civil Appeal No. 195 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal out of time)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jubilee Insurance Company (K) Limited v Daniel Maingi Muchiri [2016] KECA 796 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Civil Application (extension of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2016/796/eng@2016-02-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.