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 AppealPartially AllowedCivil Appeal (Application) E470 of 2021· [2022] KECA 846 (KLR)

Stephen Kivandi Kamula v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited (Now ABSA Bank Kenya PLC)

Court of Appeal
27 May 2022
1,300 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 bank employee a second chance to file his appeal on time, but made his own lawyers pay the costs for the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-Judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (F Sichaule, JA) on an unopposed motion dated 21st December 2021 by Stephen Kivandi Kamula seeking extension of time to file a Memorandum and Record of Appeal out of time against the judgment of 9th April 2020 in ELRC Cause No. 269 of 2016, in which his claim against Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited (now Absa Bank Kenya PLC) was dismissed. The applicant explained a 14-day delay in serving the Notice of Appeal (filed within time on 23rd April 2020 but served on 13th May 2020) and a 24-day delay in filing the appeal after collecting typed proceedings, both attributable to counsel's inadvertence and misperception of when the 60-day period began running. Applying the settled Fakir Mohamed principles governing Rule 4, the Judge held the delays were neither inordinate nor unreasonable, that the draft Memorandum of Appeal disclosed an arguable appeal, and that refusal would shut out the applicant's right of appeal entirely. The motion was allowed in terms of prayers 1, 2 and 3: time was extended to file the appeal within 7 days of the ruling, failing which the orders would stand vacated; the Notice of Appeal was deemed duly served; and the respondent's name was to be substituted with Absa Bank Kenya PLC. Notably, because counsel admitted blame, the costs of the motion were ordered to be personally borne by the applicant's advocates rather than in the cause. The decision below was not disturbed; the ruling concerns only access to the appellate process.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Holding

The motion was allowed; the delays of 14 and 24 days were not inordinate, were explained by counsel's inadvertence, the appeal was arguable, and the applicant would suffer prejudice if the right of appeal was shut out.

Reasoning

The single Judge applied the settled Fakir Mohamed principles: period of delay, reason for delay, arguability of the appeal, and prejudice. The delay was short and attributable to counsel's misperception of when the 60-day period began running. The draft Memorandum of Appeal showed an arguable appeal, and refusal would extinguish the applicant's right of appeal entirely. The discretion, though unfettered, was exercised judiciously, with time limited to 7 days and costs personally imposed on counsel.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The Court has wide unfettered discretion under Rule 4 to extend time, to be exercised judiciously, considering the period and reason for delay, chances of the appeal succeeding, prejudice to the respondent and other relevant factors.
  • A delay of 14 days in serving a Notice of Appeal and 24 days in filing an appeal, where explained, is neither inordinate nor unreasonable.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the applicant to file his Memorandum and Record of Appeal from the judgment of Ongaya, J dated 9th April 2020, within 7 days from the date of the ruling, failing which the orders will stand vacated
  2. 2.The applicant's Notice of Appeal filed herein deemed as duly served (prayer 2 allowed)
  3. 3.The name of the respondent, Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited, to be substituted with Absa Banka Kenya Plc (prayer 3 allowed)
  4. 4.Costs of the motion to be personally borne by the applicant's advocates

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 10
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 22
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 259
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSection 3
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSection 3A
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSection 3B
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 4
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 47
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 53

Cases cited (1)

  • Fakir Mohamed V Joseph Mugambi 2 Others
    C.A. No. NAI. 332 of 2004

    Settled factors for exercise of discretion under Rule 4: delay, reasons, arguability, prejudice and other relevant factors.

On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court (High Court of Kenya at Nairobi)
ELRC Cause No. 269 of 2016
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules; Sections 3, 3A & 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Articles 10, 22, 159 and 259 of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Stephen Kivandi Kamula v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited (Now ABSA Bank Kenya PLC)", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Appeal (Application) E470 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/846/eng@2022-05-27

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