Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Application E170 of 2021· [2022] KECA 521 (KLR)

Sakiri v Anyumba

Court of Appeal
28 April 2022
PKP. O. Kiage
805 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 refused to extend time to appeal because the applicant only blamed his former lawyer without showing his own efforts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal (Kiage, JA) on a Motion dated 9th December 2021 by Clement O. Sakiri seeking extension of time to lodge a Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Environment and Land Court at Migori (Ong'ondo, J.) delivered on 28th September 2021 in ELC No. 805 of 2017. The applicant blamed his former advocates, who declined to continue acting for him, for the failure to lodge the appeal in time; his current advocates came on record by consent on 11th November 2021 and filed the application about a month later. The respondent opposed, terming the delay inordinate and unexplained. The court applied the Salat principles for extension of time and declined the relief. It held that the plea that a mistake of counsel should not be visited on an innocent litigant has no blanket application and no doctrinal status; the court always examines the conduct of the party blaming counsel. Solely blaming one's advocate is not enough to unlock the Court's discretionary favour: the applicant gave no evidence of any steps he personally took, as litigant and owner of the appeal, to have it lodged in time, beyond changing advocates once time had lapsed. The court also found no explanation for the current advocates' own delay of about a month after coming on record before making the application. The application was dismissed with costs. The ruling binds the High Court and subordinate tribunals on the proposition that blaming counsel alone does not satisfactorily explain delay in extension-of-time applications.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether blaming former counsel satisfactorily explains the delay

Holding

No. The mistake-of-counsel plea has no blanket application; the applicant, as owner of the appeal, had to show the steps he personally took to have the appeal lodged in time, and he did none beyond changing advocates after time had lapsed.

Reasoning

The court applied the Salat principles, holding that extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party, and that the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court. Blaming the advocate alone does not discharge that burden; the litigant's own conduct is examined.

p. 2
02

Whether the delay was inordinate and unexplained

Holding

Yes. The delay was inordinate and unexplained, including the current advocates' own delay of about a month after coming on record on 11th November 2021 before filing the application on 9th December 2021.

Reasoning

The court noted that although there is a period set by law beyond which delay is ipso facto inordinate, the applicant must satisfactorily explain the cause of the delay. No explanation was given for the current advocates taking about a month after coming on record to make the application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The rule that a mistake of counsel should not be visited upon an innocent litigant has no blanket application and no doctrinal status; the court examines the conduct of the party blaming counsel.
  • Solely blaming one's advocate is not enough to unlock the Court's discretionary favour in an extension-of-time application; the litigant must show personal steps taken as owner of the appeal.
  • Beyond any statutory period, anyone seeking extension of time must satisfactorily explain the cause of the delay, including delay in making the application itself.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 9th December 2021 is dismissed with costs
  2. 2.Prayers for extension of time to file Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal out of time are declined

Authorities

#

Cases cited (5)

  • Daqare Transporters Limited v Chevron Kenya Limited
    [2020] eKLR

    Mistake of counsel rule has no blanket application; court examines the conduct of the party blaming counsel.

  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission & 7 others
    [2014] eKLR

    Principles governing extension of time applications.

  • Leo Sila Mutiso -vs- Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi
    [1999] 2 EA 231

    Extension of time principles (also cited).

  • Rajesh Rughani -vs- Fifty Investments Limited & another
    [2016] eKLR

    Blaming one's advocate alone does not unlock the Court's discretionary favour.

  • Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo -vs- Paul Kipkorir Kibet
    [2018] eKLR

    Anyone seeking extension of time must satisfactorily explain the cause of the delay.

On appeal from
Environment and Land Court at Migori
ELC No. 805 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion to extend time under the Court of Appeal Rules (application for extension of time for lodging Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (4)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sakiri v Anyumba", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Application E170 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/521/eng@2022-04-28

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