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 E453 of 2021· [2022] KECA 658 (KLR)

Munyuki & another (the legal & personal representatives of the estate of the late George Munyoki Mutheke (Deceased)) v Joel & another

Court of Appeal
8 July 2022
1,363 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 gave a family five months' grace to file their appeal, showing courts will forgive reasonable delays when justice demands it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi by M.S.A. Makhandia, JA, on a notice of motion dated November 8, 2021 brought under Rules 4 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules, Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Article 159(2) of the Constitution, seeking extension of time to file and serve the record of appeal out of time in an intended appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court (Meoli, J.) dated June 25, 2021 in HCCA No. 643 of 2016. The applicants filed a notice of appeal in time on June 30, 2021 but delayed about five months in filing the record, explaining that they were awaiting certified proceedings and only learned from the certificate of delay that the proceedings had been ready since August 26, 2021, the registrar's notification letter never having been received. The respondents opposed, invoking the Leo Sila Mutiso threshold and contending the applicants failed to follow up on the proceedings. The court applied the settled Mutiso factors as restated in Raballa, found the five-month delay not inordinate by comparison with George Mwende and Aviation Cargo, accepted the reasons as plausible and uncontroverted, held the appeal arguable on grounds including the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and weighed the applicants' constitutionally entrenched right of access to justice against any prejudice to the respondents. The application was allowed conditionally: the appeal to be filed within thirty days of the ruling, failing which the leave lapses; costs in the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of about five months in filing the record of appeal was inordinate and excusable

Holding

The delay was not inordinate and the reasons advanced were plausible and not seriously controverted.

Reasoning

The court compared the five-month delay with longer delays in prior authorities where extension was refused, including a twenty-month delay and a failure to file within sixty days of obtaining proceedings. The applicants had filed a notice of appeal in time and were awaiting certified copies; the certificate of delay showed the proceedings were ready earlier, but the registrar's notification letter was never received. The explanation was therefore plausible.

p. 3
02

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

Holding

The appeal was arguable on grounds including the trial court's failure to consider res ipsa loquitur, and the applicants' right to be heard outweighed any prejudice to the respondents.

Reasoning

The court reiterated that arguability does not require prospects of success, only that the grounds warrant interrogation. It weighed the constitutionally entrenched right of access to justice and the applicants' timely notice of appeal against the prejudice the respondents would suffer, finding the balance favoured granting the extension.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A single judge of the Court of Appeal has wide and unfettered discretion under Rule 4 to extend time, guided by the length of delay, reason for delay, arguability of the appeal and prejudice to the respondent.
  • An arguable appeal need not be one that will succeed; it suffices that it warrants the court's interrogation.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application for extension of time allowed on condition that the appeal be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of the ruling, failing which the leave granted shall automatically lapse
  2. 2.Costs shall be in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 4
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 47
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSection 3A
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSection 3B
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Leo Sila Mutiso Vs. Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi
    Civil Application No. Nai 251 of 1997

    Establishing the factors for extension of time: length of delay, reason, chances of success and prejudice.

  • Donald O. Raballa Vs. Judicial Service Commission & Another
    [2018] eKLR

    Reaffirming the single judge's unfettered discretion and the Mutiso factors.

  • George Mwende Muthoni Vs. Mama Day Nursery and Primary School, Nyeri
    C.A No. 4 of 2014 (UR)

    Extension of time declined for unexplained delay of twenty months.

  • Aviation Cargo Support Limited Vs. St. Marks Freight Services Limited
    [2014] eKLR

    Extension declined for failure to file appeal within sixty days of obtaining proceedings and delay in seeking extension.

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
HCCA No. 643 of 2016
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules; Section 3A & 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Article 159(2) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Munyuki & another (the legal & personal representatives of the estate of the late George Munyoki Mutheke (Deceased)) v Joel & another", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Application E453 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/658/eng@2022-07-08

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