Church of God East Africa & another v Dinah Buluma [2019] KECA 330 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to excuse a delayed appeal, holding that blaming your lawyer and failing to follow up your own case are not acceptable explanations.
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 applicants satisfactorily explained the reason for the six-month delay in filing the application
- 2.Whether the six-month delay is inordinate
- 3.Whether the application for extension of time was brought without undue delay
- 4.Whether the applicants demonstrated that the respondent stands to suffer no prejudice if extension is granted
Key legal issues
#Whether blame on a former advocate constitutes sufficient reason for extension of time
No. Blaming an advocate's failure to inform the client of a judgment is not sufficient reason where the client was represented when judgment was delivered and took no steps to follow up.
The Court relied on Rajesh Rughani, Bains Construction and Habo Agencies to hold that a party cannot simply blame counsel; parties must show interest in and follow up their cases even when represented. The applicants were represented when the judgment was read, and no steps of enquiry were demonstrated. Inadvertence must have its nature and quality explained, following Dilpack and Itute Ngui.
Whether inaction by a newly instructed advocate can justify the delay
No. No explanation was given for the inaction of the new advocate between 7th March 2019 and 27th June 2019, and a court of equity frowns on such conduct.
Following Donald O. Raballa, new advocates must move with alacrity to save a situation caused by previous advocates' inaction. Here the applicants offered no averment explaining why the new counsel did not file the Notice of Appeal immediately after instructions on 7th March 2019, leaving an unexplained gap until 27th June 2019.
Whether arguable prospects of success can of themselves amount to sufficient reason
No. Likelihood of success on appeal cannot of itself amount to sufficient reason for extension of time.
Applying Mugo v Wanjiru and Abdul Aziz Ngoma, sufficient reason must ordinarily relate to the inability or failure to take the step in time; prospects of success are only considered once sufficient reason is established.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time under rule 4 is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party, and an applicant must account for every single day of the delay
- It is not a sufficient explanation for delay to state that counsel did not inform the client of the outcome of a case; a litigant must exercise diligence and follow up their case even when represented
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 20th July 2019 be and is hereby dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (discretion to extend time)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal
No sufficient and satisfactory explanation for the delay; the applicants did not follow up their case and their new advocate's inaction between 7th March 2019 and 27th June 2019 was unexplained
Costs
The Notice of Motion dated 20th July 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.
Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 20th July 2019 be and is hereby dismissed with costs.
It behooves a client/litigant to exercise diligence and follow up the progress and outcome of his/her case.
I find that there are no extenuating circumstances that would allow me to exercise my jurisdiction and discretion to extend time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal in this matter.
whereas the law does not set the minimum or maximum period of delay, in my view, an applicant is expected to account for every single day of the delay.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Church of God East Africa & another v Dinah Buluma [2019] KECA 330 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 20th July 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/330/eng@2019-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.