Charo Karisa Ngulu v Kihuba Holdings Limited [2020] KECA 15 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to extend appeal deadlines, ruling that lack of money is never a valid excuse for delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether lack of funds justified the delay in lodging the notice of appeal and record of appeal
No. Impecuniosity is not accepted as a valid reason for extension of time, and the applicant did not disclose how much money he could not raise, which was indicative of lack of candour.
The applicant attributed the delay from the 7th March 2019 ruling to November 2019, when he applied for typed proceedings, to financial constraints. The court held impecuniosity is not a valid reason, noted the applicant never quantified the shortfall, and found the non-disclosure suggestive of lack of candour. The Covid-19 pandemic and transfer of the trial judge were also rejected since most of the unexplained period predated the pandemic.
Whether the intended appeal was arguable and whether prejudice would ensue
The court found no merit in the motion and dismissed it without separate findings on arguability, the unexplained delay being determinative.
Although the applicant asserted the intended appeal raised weighty and arguable issues with a high probability of success, the court rested its dismissal on the failure to sufficiently explain the delay in filing the notice of appeal (filed 4 days out of time) and in applying for proceedings some 240 days after the ruling. The respondent also alleged prejudice, but the dispositive ground was the inadequately explained delay.
Legal principles established
#- Impecuniosity is not a valid reason for extending time to lodge an appeal, though each case must be considered on its own facts.
- Rule 4 applications are decided on the settled principles of length of delay, reason for delay, arguability of the intended appeal and prejudice to the respondent.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 15th June, 2020 seeking extension of time is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- ELC No. 171 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charo Karisa Ngulu v Kihuba Holdings Limited [2020] KECA 15 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Mombasa Civil Application No. 45 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2020/15/eng@2020-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.