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 AppealAllowedRule 4 application (notice of motion lodged 15th October 2019)· [2021] KECA 458 (KLR)

Njenga & 3 others v Chelule & another (Civil Application 163 of 2019) [2021] KECA 458 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
9 June 2021
1,179 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that if you were never told a judgment was delivered, you can still get extra time to appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a single-judge Rule 4 application in the Court of Appeal at Nairobi for extension of time to file a notice of appeal and record of appeal against a High Court (ELC) judgment by Ngetich, J delivered on 11th July 2019. The High Court judgment had arisen from an appeal against the dismissal of a suit by Moto Farmers Cooperative Society Limited challenging Peter Chelule's authority to act as liquidator and the sale of the society's premises on LR No 9716 Molo. The applicants, defendants in the magistrate's court suit as administrators of estates of persons who purchased the suit property, contended they were unaware the judgment had been delivered because no notice of delivery was served; the judgment was originally slated for 15th April 2019 but not delivered due to court vacation. Counsel learned of the judgment on 27th September 2019 and filed the motion on 15th October 2019. The respondents, though served with the application and hearing notices by email, filed neither a reply nor submissions. Okwengu, JA applied the settled Rule 4 factors and the Salat principles, held the explanation plausible, observed that notification of the judgment date is the court's duty, and found the residual 17-day delay not inordinately long. The court held that delivery of judgment without notification constitutes sufficient ground for extension of time, allowed the motion, deemed it properly filed, directed filing of the record of appeal within 60 days, and ordered costs of the motion to be in the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants' delay in filing the notice of appeal was adequately explained and excusable

Holding

Yes. The applicants were never notified of the delivery of judgment; the delay of about 17 days after learning of the judgment was not inordinate, and non-notification of judgment delivery constitutes sufficient ground for extension of time.

Reasoning

The court noted it is the duty of the court to notify parties of the judgment date, especially when the initially given date changes. Having learned of the judgment on 27th September 2019, the applicants filed their motion on 15th October 2019, roughly 17 days later. Though this residual delay was unexplained, it was not inordinately long. Delivery of judgment without notice justified enlarging time.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The Court's Rule 4 discretion to extend time is unfettered but must be exercised judicially, considering the reason for the delay, its length, prejudice to the respondent, and the chances of the appeal succeeding.
  • Where a judgment is delivered in the absence of a party without notification and the party becomes aware of it after expiry of the prescribed time, that constitutes sufficient ground for extension of time.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time granted to file a notice of appeal from the High Court judgment delivered on 11th July 2019
  2. 2.The notice of motion lodged on 15th October 2019 deemed as properly filed
  3. 3.The applicants to file a record of appeal within 60 days from the date of the order
  4. 4.Costs of the motion to be in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 4

Cases cited (3)

  • Thuita Mwangi v Kenya Airways Limited
    [2003] eKLR
  • Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi
    (Civil Application No Nai 255 of 1997)
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 7 others
    (2014) eKLR
On appeal from
High Court (Environment and Land Court)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (inherent discretion to extend time)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njenga & 3 others v Chelule & another (Civil Application 163 of 2019) [2021] KECA 458 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Rule 4 application (notice of motion lodged 15th October 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/458/eng@2021-06-09

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