George Owuor Olaka v Paul K. Muruga [2019] KECA 264 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to extend time to file an appeal record because the applicant could not explain a four-month delay.
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 applicant has offered a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the Record and Memorandum of Appeal to justify extension of time
Key legal issues
#Whether unexplained delay after the expiry of the certified-delay period warrants extension of time
The application was dismissed because the applicant did not account for the delay between 12th April 2019 and 15th August 2019; extension of time is a discretionary remedy requiring an explanation for the whole period of delay.
The Notice of Appeal was filed within time on 9th June 2017, and a Certificate of Delay excluded the period from 9th June 2017 to 12th April 2019 in the computation of time. However, once the proceedings were ready on 12th April 2019, no reason was advanced for the further delay until 15th August 2019. In the absence of any explanation for that unaccounted period, the judge declined to exercise the discretion to extend time.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of delay excludes only the period it covers; an applicant for extension of time must still explain any delay after the date the proceedings were certified ready, failing which the application will be dismissed.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 15th August, 2019 seeking extension of time is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the Court of Appeal to extend time for filing the Record and Memorandum of Appeal (rule-based extension-of-time jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file the Record and Memorandum of Appeal out of time
The applicant failed to explain the delay between 12th April 2019 (when proceedings were ready) and 15th August 2019 (when the application was filed), so the discretion to extend time was not exercised in the applicant's favour
Costs
The Notice of Motion dated 15th August, 2019 be and is hereby dismissed with costs.
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.
In the absence of any explanation or reason for delay after the certificate of delay, I find that the instant application was filed after a delay that has not been explained.
Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 15 th August, 2019 be and is hereby dismissed with costs. The applicant has not given any reason for delay to enable me exercise my discretion to extend time.
Issues in the judgment
#The copy of the judgment does not state the case title, case number, or the parties' names; the parties are referred to only as 'the applicant'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George Owuor Olaka v Paul K. Muruga [2019] KECA 264 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/264/eng@2019-10-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.