Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedCivil Application (Notice of Motion dated 3rd February, 2021)· [2021] KECA 268 (KLR)

Wajir County Government & 1 other v Kenya County Government Workers Union

Court of Appeal
3 December 2021
1,454 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal let Wajir County file an appeal nearly a year late, accepting Covid-19 disruptions as a valid reason for the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Wajir County Government and the Wajir County Assembly Service Board moved the Court of Appeal under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules for leave to file an appeal out of time against an Employment and Labour Relations Court judgment of 16th January 2020, delivered in favour of the Kenya County Government Workers Union. The applicants explained a delay of about one year by reference to the late release of certified proceedings (applied for on 24th March 2020 and received on 10th December 2020) and the Covid-19 pandemic, which closed public offices, their advocates' offices and scaled down judicial services. The union opposed, contending that e-filing guidelines were in place and no sufficient explanation had been given. Applying the settled Leo Sila Mutiso parameters, as restated by the Supreme Court in the Salat case, the court found the pandemic a plausible explanation for the delay, held the draft memorandum of appeal showed a non-frivolous appeal raising uncontroverted public-interest issues concerning the county wage bill and use of public funds, and found no prejudice to the respondent outweighing the constitutionally entrenched right to be heard. The single-judge application was allowed; the applicants were directed to file and serve the record of appeal within thirty days, with costs to abide the outcome of the intended appeal. This was an interlocutory extension-of-time ruling by a single judge, not a decision on the appeal itself.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants gave a reasonable explanation for the delay of about one year

Holding

The Covid-19 pandemic, which closed the applicants' public offices and their advocate's offices, was a plausible explanation.

Reasoning

The court accepted that from mid-March 2020 the Covid-19 pandemic disrupted normal operations nationwide, including closure of the applicants' public offices and their advocate's offices and scaling down of judicial services. This was found to be a plausible explanation notwithstanding the respondent's argument that e-filing was available.

p. 3
02

Whether the intended appeal was arguable and whether extension would prejudice the respondent

Holding

The appeal was not frivolous on its face, raised issues of public interest, and the respondent would suffer no irreparable prejudice; the right to be heard weighed in favour of extension.

Reasoning

The draft memorandum showed the intended appeal was not frivolous, and the applicants' public-interest averment was uncontroverted. The court invoked the constitutionally entrenched right to a hearing, holding that a decision reached in violation of that right would be nullified, and concluded that the issues should be interrogated on merit in the interest of justice.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Rule 4 extension of time is discretionary and guided by the Leo Sila Mutiso parameters: length of delay, reason for delay, arguability of the appeal and prejudice to the respondent.
  • A delay will be excused where a plausible and satisfactory explanation is offered.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dated 3rd February, 2021 allowed
  2. 2.Applicants directed to file and serve the record of appeal within thirty (30) days from the date of the ruling
  3. 3.Costs to abide by the outcome of the intended appeal
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wajir County Government & 1 other v Kenya County Government Workers Union", Case Analysis (2021). Civil Application (Notice of Motion dated 3rd February, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/268/eng@2021-12-03

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.