Pyramid Hauliers Limited v James Omingo Nyaanga & 3 others [2020] KECA 881 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to excuse a company's late appeal filing, ruling that blaming your lawyer is not enough without proof of your own follow-up.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an applicant for extension of time may rely solely on the inaction of its former advocate
No. In the absence of an affidavit from the former advocate explaining the failure, inaction can be surmised, and the litigant must also show it followed up its case.
The court adopted its earlier explanation in Donald O. Raballa that where there is no affidavit from the erstwhile advocates explaining their failure, inaction can only be surmised. It further adopted Habo Agencies on the party's own responsibility to follow up its case. The supporting affidavit here showed no steps taken to pursue the appeal; there was no request for proceedings and no certificate of delay, so the reasons for delay were not plausible.
Whether granting the extension would prejudice the 1st respondent
Yes. The decretal sum of Kshs. 500,000 had already been disbursed to the 1st respondent, so an extension would be prejudicial.
Although the circumstances in which the Kshs. 500,000 was disbursed were disputed and unclear, the court found as a fact that the money was disbursed to the 1st respondent. Granting the application would therefore be prejudicial to him, one of the settled factors weighing against extension of time.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is discretionary and depends on the length of delay, the reason for delay, prejudice to respondents, and possibly the chances of the appeal succeeding.
- Blaming counsel is not a blanket protection; litigants must in appropriate situations bear the brunt of their advocates' mistakes and must show interest in and follow up their cases.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time is dismissed with costs
- On appeal from
- High Court at Kajiado
- H.C.C.A No. 2 of 2016
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (7)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mwamutsi & another (Representing the Estate of Ali Muriani Mwafungo) v Bahari & another (Environment and Land Appeal E033 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6093 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 6093 (KLR)22 Sept 2025
- Wainaina v Ngugi[2023] KEELC 20393 (KLR)5 Oct 2023applied
- Kamau v Nazamdini[2023] KEELC 20462 (KLR)5 Oct 2023applied
- Solanki v Hard Tech Industrial Supplies Ltd (Cause E752 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 2283 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 2283 (KLR)28 Sept 2023
- Naftali Nduati Mwangi & another v Duncan Kionga [2021] KEELC 2718 (KLR)[2021] KEELC 2718 (KLR)28 Jun 2021applied
- Joseph Kiprepeli Lotukei v Stephen Toroitich Korkou (Environment & Land Case 147 of 2014) [2021] KEELC 4399 (KLR)[2021] KEELC 4399 (KLR)11 Feb 2021
- FRERA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED v MORRIS MUREITHI MUTEMBEI[2020] KEHC 4006 (KLR)16 Jul 2020applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pyramid Hauliers Limited v James Omingo Nyaanga & 3 others [2020] KECA 881 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Application No. 183 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2020/881/eng@2020-02-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.