Shelly Beach Hotel & another v Kenya Revenue Authority [2020] KECA 825 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal granted late appeal filers extra time because a certificate of delay proved the court registry, not the litigants, caused the holdup.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Principles governing extension of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
The court applies the discretionary factors in Salat vs. IEBC — delay, explanation for delay, prejudice, and absence of undue delay in bringing the application — to decide whether a deserving party merits extension.
The court recited the seven Salat principles and Waki JA's earlier enumeration of relevant factors in Fakir Mohamed, holding that the discretion is broad and case-specific. On the facts, the notice of appeal was filed and served in time, a certificate of delay covered the period 31 January to 27 August 2019, the delay was not inordinate, and the respondent suggested the application may even have been unnecessary and would suffer no prejudice.
Whether the delay was attributable to the applicants
The delay in preparing the record was covered by a certificate of delay issued by the registry, so the delay was not the applicants' doing and was not inordinate.
The applicants applied for typed proceedings on 31 January 2019 with reminders through 18 July 2019, and the certificate of delay issued on 16 September 2019 certified the period required for preparation of proceedings. The court accepted that this explained the delay and that no prejudice would ensue to the respondent.
Legal principles established
#- The grant or refusal of an application for extension of time is an exercise of judicial discretion governed by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Salat vs. IEBC — extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay and absence of prejudice.
- This is a single-judge interlocutory ruling; it applies existing precedent (Salat and Fakir Mohamed) to the facts rather than laying down new binding rules.
Court orders
#- 1.Prayer 1 of the application dated 8 October 2019 allowed — time for instituting the appeal extended
- 2.Applicants to file and serve the memorandum and record of appeal within 45 days from the date of delivery of the Ruling
- 3.Costs of the application shall be in the appeal
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Mombasa H.C.C. No. 306 of 2001
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kenya Revenue Authority & Another v Thomas Mwita Marwa[2019] KEHC 4235 (KLR)19 Sept 2019
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shelly Beach Hotel & another v Kenya Revenue Authority [2020] KECA 825 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Court of Appeal Application dated 8 October 2019 (arising from Mombasa H.C.C. No. 306 of 2001). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2020/825/eng@2020-04-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.