Susan Ogutu Oloo & 1 other v Doris Odindo Omolo
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to excuse a sixteen-month delay in filing an appeal because the applicants simply blamed their lawyer instead of following up their own case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of sixteen months in filing the application for extension of time was adequately explained
The delay was inordinate and unexplained; hospitalisation of the 2nd applicant covered only 9th to 17th October 2016 and no explanation was given from discharge to filing
The court held the applicants had to explain the full sixteen months. The hospitalisation explanation covered barely a week after the ruling. No explanation was offered for the remaining period from discharge on 17th October 2016 to filing on 20th April 2018. The explanation that the applicants were unaware of the ruling was disbelieved because their counsel was present when it was delivered.
Whether blaming counsel for non-communication justifies extension of time
No; a litigant must show the steps taken to follow up the case with their advocate
Relying on Bi-Mach Engineering, Habo Agencies and Samuel Mbugua Githere, the court held that clients must show interest in and pursue their cases even when represented. There was no evidence of any action taken to find out the outcome of the case from the advocate on record, and the Notice of Appeal was a simple document that could easily have been filed as a precaution.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is not a right of a party; the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the Court, and the reason for delay must be explained to the Court's satisfaction
- It is not enough to blame an advocate for failure to inform; the client has a duty to pursue the advocate and follow up the litigation
- A single Judge's discretion under Rule 4 must be exercised judiciously, not whimsically or capriciously
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 1st February, 2018 be and is hereby dismissed with costs
- On appeal from
- High Court
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time jurisdiction exercised by a single Judge)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Susan Ogutu Oloo & 1 other v Doris Odindo Omolo", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion dated 1st February, 2018 (Court of Appeal, Kisumu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/966/eng@2019-02-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.