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) E639 of 2021· [2022] KECA 863 (KLR)

Monaco Engineering Co. Ltd v Njeru, Nyaga & Co Advocates

Court of Appeal
22 July 2022
1,090 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a company to appeal late, showing courts will forgive short, honestly explained filing delays.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal (Makhandia, JA) on an undated motion under Sections 3, 3A & 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, seeking extension of time to serve a notice of appeal out of time from a ruling of Majanja, J. of the High Court at Nairobi delivered on 10th September 2021 in Misc. Civil Application No. E412 of 2019. The applicant filed its notice of appeal on 21st September 2021 within time but failed to serve it, or a letter bespeaking proceedings, within the prescribed seven days, attributing the omission to regrettable inadvertence; the application was lodged about 40 days after filing the notice. The respondent opposed the application as frivolous and an abuse of process. Applying the settled Rule 4 factors - length and reason for delay, possible arguability of the intended appeal, and prejudice - the court found the delay not inordinate and sufficiently explained, was satisfied the draft memorandum raised bona fide issues, and noted the respondent claimed no prejudice. Weighing the risk of a nugatory appeal against a colossal sum of Kshs.28,000,000, the court allowed the application as prayed, deeming the notice of appeal filed and served within time, with costs of the application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Principles governing extension of time under Rule 4

Holding

The court considers the length of delay, reason for delay, possible chances of success of the intended appeal, and prejudice to the respondent.

Reasoning

The court restated the settled Rule 4 factors, citing Mutiso, Njuguna, Fakir Mohammed and Muringa. It found the roughly 40-day delay not inordinate and sufficiently explained as inadvertence, and that the respondent claimed no prejudice.

p. 2
02

Chances of success of the intended appeal

Holding

A single judge does not determine the merits definitively; the applicant need only show possibly arguable bona fide issues.

Reasoning

Relying on Athuman Nusura Juma, the court held that whether an intended appeal has merits is not determined with finality by a single judge; the consideration is prefixed with 'possibly'. The draft memorandum disclosed bona fide issues.

p. 2
03

Balance of prejudice

Holding

Prejudice to the applicant if the application is refused outweighs any prejudice to the respondent, given the Kshs.28,000,000 sum at stake.

Reasoning

The respondent did not claim it would suffer prejudice if the application were granted. The court weighed the applicant's risk of a nugatory appeal against execution of a colossal sum and found the balance favoured the applicant.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The Rule 4 extension-of-time discretion is unfettered but must be exercised judicially on sound factual and legal basis, considering delay, reasons, arguability and prejudice.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Time limited to serve the notice of appeal extended
  2. 2.The notice of appeal filed on 21st September 2021 deemed filed and served within time
  3. 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSections 3, 3A & 3B
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 4
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159

Cases cited (7)

  • Muringa Company Ltd Vs. Archdiocese of Nairobi Registered Trustees
    Civil Application No. 190 of 2019

    Extension of time principles; urged by applicant not to drive it from the seat of justice

  • Muchungi Kiragu & Another
    Civil Application No. Nai 356 of 1996

    Cited by applicant in support of extension of time

  • Kiranga Estates Limited Vs. National Bank of Kenya Limited
    [2019] eKLR

    Cited by respondent urging dismissal of the application

  • Leo Sila Mutiso Vs. Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi
    [1999] 2 EA 231

    Settled principles for extension of time under Rule 4

  • Njuguna Vs. Magichu & 73 Others
    [2003] KLR 507

    Rule 4 discretion is unfettered but exercised judicially on sound factual and legal basis

  • Fakir Mohammed Vs. Joseph Mugambi & 2 Others
    [2005] eKLR

    Extension of time principles

  • Athuman Nusura Juma Vs. Afwa Mohamed Ramadhan
    [2016] eKLR

    Single judge does not determine merits with finality; 'possibly' arguable standard

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Misc. Civil Application No. E412 of 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3, 3A & 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Monaco Engineering Co. Ltd v Njeru, Nyaga & Co Advocates", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Appeal (Application) E639 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/863/eng@2022-07-22

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