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 AppealDismissedCivil Application No. 198 of 2017 (UR 157/2017)· [2018] KECA 838 (KLR)

Abdulkadir Athman Salim Elkindy v Director of Public Prosecutions & Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission

Court of Appeal
16 February 2018
2,018 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to excuse a late appeal, ruling that extension of time is a privilege for deserving parties, not a right.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge (in chambers) ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi by M'Inoti, J.A., on a rule 4 application by Abdulkadir Athman Salim Elkindy, a suspended Principal Magistrate, for extension of time to file a notice of appeal out of time against Mativo J.'s judgment of 25th July 2017 dismissing his petition seeking prohibition of his criminal prosecution. The prosecution arose from allegations that the applicant presided over sham judicial proceedings facilitating the fraudulent transfer of LR No. 7545/3 (9,394 acres valued at Kshs 2.32 billion) from Miwani Sugar Mills (1989) Limited to Crossley Holdings Limited. The applicant explained the 14-day non-compliance as 'inadvertence' and his advocate's inability to reach him, but the court found he knew of the dismissal on 3rd August 2017, within the prescribed period, yet waited until 19th August to give instructions. Restating the Salat framework - that rule 4 jurisdiction is wide and unfettered but must be exercised judiciously, and that extension of time is a discretionary remedy for a deserving party, not a right - the judge held the explanation casual and unexplained. Considering the parties' conduct throughout the litigation, he accepted the 2nd respondent's submission that the application was a stratagem to further delay a criminal trial already stalled for seven years through prohibition orders. The application was dismissed with costs to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission. The decision below was not disturbed; no appeal notice was regularised.

Key legal issues

#
01

Factors for extension of time under rule 4

Holding

The court considers an open-ended list of relevant factors including length and reason for delay, prejudice, public administration, constitutional imperatives, timelines, resources and public importance

Reasoning

The court restated the Salat framework: rule 4 jurisdiction is wide and unfettered but must be exercised judiciously. No limit exists on the factors so long as they are relevant. Extension is not a right but a discretionary remedy for a deserving party who must place plausible material before the court explaining non-compliance.

p. 2
02

Whether the applicant's explanation for the delay was plausible

Holding

It was not; the applicant knew of the dismissal on 3rd August 2017, within the 14-day period, yet waited until 19th August to instruct his advocate

Reasoning

The stated reason of 'inadvertence' was unexplained, and the communication difficulty was immaterial because the applicant knew of the judgment in good time. The court was entitled to consider the conduct of the parties throughout the litigation, concluding the application was a stratagem to further delay a criminal trial already stalled for seven years.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The jurisdiction under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is wide and unfettered but must be exercised judiciously and on the basis of reason
  • Extension of time is a discretionary remedy available only to a deserving party, not a right
  • Failure to explain the delay justifies refusal of extension of time

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal out of time is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 2nd respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Penal Codesection 317
  • Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Actsection 45(1)(a) as read with section 48
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 4
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 74(2)
  • Constitution of Kenyaprivileges and immunity of judicial officers (implied)
  • Judicature Actnot specified

Cases cited (10)

  • Nicholas Kiptoo arap Korir Salat v. IEBC & 7 Others
    [2014] eKLR

    Considerations for extension of time; jurisdiction under rule 4 wide and unfettered; extension is discretionary, not a right

  • Gichugu Koine v. Stephen Njathi Thoithi
    [2014] eKLR

    Time should be extended if no prejudice will be occasioned to respondents

  • Keziah Stella Pyman & 2 Others v. Paul Mwololo & 8 Others
    [2013] eKLR

    Time should be extended if no prejudice will be occasioned to respondents

  • Aviation Cargo Support Ltd v. St. Mark Freight Services Ltd
    [2014] eKLR

    Where delay is inordinate or unexplained, extension of time is not entitled

  • Fahim Yasin Twaha v. Timamy Issa Abdalla & 2 Others
    [2015] eKLR

    Where delay is inordinate or unexplained, extension of time is not entitled

  • Kenya Agricultural & Livestock Research Organization v Stephen Naruiya Kanyanja
    [2015] eKLR

    Extension should not be granted where intended appeal is not demonstrated to be arguable

  • Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi
    CA No. Nai. 255 of 1997

    Rule 4 jurisdiction is wide and unfettered

  • Julius Kamau Kithaka v. Waruguru Kithaka Nyaga & 2 Others
    CA No. 14 of 2013

    Discretion must be exercised judiciously and on reason, not arbitrarily

  • Fakir Mohamed v Joseph Mugambi & 2 Others
    CA No. Nai. 332 of 2004

    Factors to consider in extension of time applications

  • Kenya Power & Lighting Co Ltd v. Harrison Musoga Obimbo
    CA. No. Nai. 89 of 2017

    Failure to explain delay amounts to no reason justifying exercise of discretion

On appeal from
High Court
HC Pet. No. 181 of 2016
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time to file notice of appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Abdulkadir Athman Salim Elkindy v Director of Public Prosecutions & Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Application No. 198 of 2017 (UR 157/2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/838/eng@2018-02-16

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