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 E278 of 2021· [2022] KECA 867 (KLR)

Samuel Ngoru Kamau & 727 Others v National Water Conservation & Pipeline Conservation t/a National Water Harvesting & Storage Authority; Ministry of Water and Sanitation (Interested Party)

Court of Appeal
20 May 2022
1,185 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 728 former water workers more time to appeal because the court itself delayed giving them the documents they needed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal (Kantai, JA) on an application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal and record of appeal against a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Mbaru, J.) dated 18th February 2021, by which the applicants' petitions were dismissed following a preliminary objection on res judicata, functus officio, abuse of process and competency grounds. The applicants, 728 former employees of the respondent, claimed that water sector reforms under the Water Act 2002 led to their redeployment to Water Service Boards without re-engagement, amounting to unfair redundancy and constitutional breaches. They explained the delay in filing by the trial court's failure to supply proceedings and the ruling timeously; they applied for proceedings on the day of delivery and filed notice of appeal the following day. The respondent opposed, contending the motion violated the proviso to Rule 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules and amounted to an abuse of process. Applying the well-established Fakir Mohamed principles and the overriding objective in Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, the court found the delay explained, saw no prejudice to the respondent, and allowed the motion. The appeal was to be filed within 30 days, with costs of the motion in the appeal. The decision below was not disturbed; this ruling concerns only procedural leave to appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was adequately explained and whether extension of time should be granted

Holding

The delay was explained by the ELRC's failure to supply proceedings and ruling on time; the respondent would suffer no prejudice, so extension was granted.

Reasoning

The court applied the Fakir Mohamed principles: length and reason for delay, chances of success, and prejudice to the respondent. The applicants applied for proceedings on the day of delivery and filed notice of appeal the next day; the delay was attributable to the trial court's failure to supply the proceedings and ruling. No prejudice to the respondent was identified, and the overriding objective favoured hearing the applicants on appeal.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The exercise of the Court of Appeal's discretion under Rule 4 on extension of time is unfettered, guided by relevant factors including delay, reason for delay, chances of success, and prejudice to the respondent.
  • Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act require the Court to ensure factors considered are consonant with the overriding objective of just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of disputes.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time granted for the applicants to file their appeal
  2. 2.Appeal to be filed within 30 days of 20th May 2022
  3. 3.Costs of the Motion to be in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 152(d)
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSections 3, 3A, 3B
  • Court of Appeal RulesRules 1(2), 4, 75, 82
  • Water Act2002 (reforms referred to in background)
  • Employment ActSection 80

Cases cited (6)

  • Fakir Mohamed v Joseph Mugambi & 2 Others
    Civil Application No. 332 of 2004

    Principles governing extension of time under Rule 4.

  • Mutiso v Mwangi
    Civil Application No. NAI. 255 of 1997 (ur)

    Relevant factors in extension of time.

  • Mwangi v Kenya Airways Limited
    [2003] KLR 496

    Relevant factors in extension of time.

  • Major Joseph Mwereri Igweta v Murika Methare & Attorney General
    Civil Application No. NAI 8 of 2000 (ur)

    Relevant factors in extension of time.

  • Murai v Wainaina (No. 4)
    1982 KLR 38

    Relevant factors in extension of time.

  • City Chemist (Nbi) & Anor. v Oriental Commercial Bank Limited
    Civil Application NAI. 302 of 2008 (ur)

    Overriding objective under Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act.

On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Nairobi
ELRC Petition No. 6 of 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 152(d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Sections 3, 3A, 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Rules 1(2), 4, 75 and 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samuel Ngoru Kamau & 727 Others v National Water Conservation & Pipeline Conservation t/a National Water Harvesting & Storage Authority; Ministry of Water and Sanitation (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Application E278 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/867/eng@2022-05-20

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