Yunes Moraa Gichana v Wakenya Pamoja Sacco Society Limited & 1 other
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal, ruling that a good explanation for delay is not enough unless the intended appeal is genuinely arguable.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the appeal out of time was excusable
Although a reasonable explanation for the delay existed (late communication of judgment and Covid-19 lockdown), the application failed because the intended appeal was not arguable.
The court applied the twin tests in Leo Sila Mutiso and Mwangi v Kenya Airways: explanation of delay and arguability. It found a reasonable explanation existed, but examining the draft Memorandum of Appeal against the trial court's prayers and awards, it found a marked departure and no arguable appeal, since the applicant had been adequately compensated and could not relitigate her case afresh on appeal. Both limbs must be satisfied; failure on arguability disposes of the application.
Legal principles established
#- An extension of time is discretionary and the court considers whether inordinate delay has been explained and whether the intended appeal is arguable.
Court orders
#- 1.Application for extension of time declined
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (leave to file Notice of Appeal and record of appeal out of time)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Yunes Moraa Gichana v Wakenya Pamoja Sacco Society Limited & 1 other", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/321/eng@2021-12-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.