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 Appeal (Application) E051 of 2021· [2022] KECA 457 (KLR)

Kenya Magistrates & Judges Association v Turinga & 2 others

Court of Appeal
18 March 2022
798 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a late appeal filing because a fire destroyed counsel's home, showing honest explanations for delay can save a case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi by M'Inoti, JA, on the applicant's Motion dated 18th February 2021 under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking extension of time to file a memorandum and record of appeal out of time from the judgment and decree of the High Court (Sergon, Mutuku & Njuguna, JJ.) dated 24th May 2019 in Constitutional Petition No. 442 of 2015. Counsel for the applicant deposed that a notice of appeal was filed on 7th June 2019, certified copies of proceedings were received on 12th October 2020, and under Rule 82(1) the record of appeal was due by 11th December 2020. However, on 30th October 2020 counsel's home was gutted by fire, forcing him to take three months' leave to resettle his family; he resumed in February 2021 and the application was made promptly on 18th February 2021. The respondents filed no affidavit, grounds of opposition or submissions, and the motion was treated as unopposed. Applying the settled criteria in Leo Sila Mutiso and Fakir Mohamed - length of delay, reason for delay, chances of the appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent - the court found the delay not inordinate and candidly explained, the intended appeal not frivolous, and no prejudice demonstrated by the respondents. The application was allowed, with the applicant directed to file and serve the memorandum and record of appeal within twenty-one days, and costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of roughly two months beyond the Rule 82(1) deadline was inordinate

Holding

The delay was not inordinate and was candidly and truthfully explained by the fire that destroyed counsel's home and his three-month absence from office.

Reasoning

The record of appeal was due on 11th December 2020, sixty days after receipt of certified copies. Counsel's home burnt down on 30th October 2020 and he took three months' leave to resettle his family, resuming in February 2021, when the application was promptly made. The court found this sufficient explanation.

p. 2
02

Whether the intended appeal is frivolous and whether the respondents would suffer prejudice

Holding

The intended appeal is not frivolous and the respondents will suffer no prejudice, as they did not come forward to demonstrate any.

Reasoning

The applicant submitted the appeal raises important questions. The respondents filed no affidavit, grounds of opposition or submissions, so the motion was treated as unopposed; the court reasoned that had prejudice existed, the respondents would have demonstrated it.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The Court's discretion to extend time is wide and unfettered but must be exercised judiciously, guided by the length of and reason for delay, chances of appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent.
  • Courts recognise that deadlines may be missed in the normal vicissitudes of life even by knowledgeable and zealous litigants.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time granted to file the memorandum and record of appeal
  2. 2.Applicant directed to file and serve the memorandum and record of appeal within twenty-one (21) days from the date of the ruling
  3. 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 4
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 82(1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Leo Sila Mutiso v. Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi
    Civil Application No. Nai. 255 of 1997

    Settled considerations guiding extension of time: length and reason for delay, chances of success, prejudice to respondent.

  • Fakir Mohamed v. Joseph Mugambi & 2 Others
    CA No. Nai. 332 of 2004

    Same settled considerations for extension of time.

  • Aviation Cargo Support Ltd. v. St. Marks Freight Services Ltd
    (2014) e KLR

    Deadlines will be missed in the normal vicissitudes of life even by the knowledgeable and zealous.

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Const. Pet. No. 442 of 2015
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time discretion)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Magistrates & Judges Association v Turinga & 2 others", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Appeal (Application) E051 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/457/eng@2022-03-18

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