Gloria Paolo v Pietro Scavo [2019] KECA 276 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal because over two years of unexplained delay cannot be blamed on former lawyers.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in seeking extension of time was inordinate and explained
The delay of over two years between current counsel coming on record and the filing of the motion was inordinate and unexplained; blame on previous counsel did not account for the current counsel's own inaction
The court accepted there were lapses by the applicant's counsel in not annexing the Notice of Appeal or a draft Memorandum of Appeal. More fundamentally, although the applicant blamed former advocates (Kilonzo Aziz Advocates), the firm of Gikandi & Co. Advocates came on record on 21st July, 2016 and took no step until 15th October, 2018. No explanation was offered for that period of delay, which the court found dispositive against the exercise of discretion.
Whether the absence of an annexed Notice of Appeal and draft Memorandum of Appeal was fatal
The omission suggested laxity on the part of the applicant's counsel but was not, standing alone, determinative; the unexplained inordinate delay was
The respondent pointed out that the Notice of Appeal, the impugned ruling and a draft Memorandum of Appeal were not annexed, depriving the court of a basis to assess the prospects of the intended appeal. Counsel for the applicant conceded the mistake. The court treated these lapses as indicative of laxity, but grounded the dismissal principally on the unexplained inordinate delay between counsel coming on record and filing the motion.
Legal principles established
#- The discretion of a single judge under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is wide and unfettered, and is exercised by weighing factors including length of and reason for delay, prejudice, conduct of parties, and possible chances of success of the intended appeal
- A single judge determining an extension-of-time application does not definitively determine the merits of the intended appeal; the merits consideration is prefaced with 'possibly'
- The court's discretion to extend time under Rule 4 arises only once sufficient reason for extension has been established; only then can prejudice and prospects of success be considered
- Where delay is inordinate, the applicant must give a plausible explanation to the satisfaction of the court, including steps taken to come to court as soon as practicable
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 15th October, 2018 seeking extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (discretion of a single judge to extend time)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Hawa Ali Leruk Slade v Vinod Kumar Kantilal Shah (suing Through His Duly Appointed Attorney Neelih Amratlal Shah) & 4 others[2025] KECA 1688 (KLR)21 Oct 2025
- Samuel Mukuha Njuki & another v Margaret Nyokabi Kahihu & another [2021] KECA 959 (KLR)[2021] KECA 959 (KLR)19 Feb 2021
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gloria Paolo v Pietro Scavo [2019] KECA 276 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion dated 15th October, 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/276/eng@2019-10-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.