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) E674 of 2021· [2022] KECA 907 (KLR)

Kenya Power & Lighting Co Limited v Mwanthi

Court of Appeal
28 April 2022
1,974 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal gave Kenya Power's opponent extra time to challenge an appeal, confirming courts will excuse delay if it is honestly explained.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi by Laibuta, JA, on a Notice of Motion dated 25 January 2022 by Joseph Nzioki Mwanthi (the respondent in the main appeal) under Rules 4 and 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules, seeking extension of time to file an application to strike out Kenya Power & Lighting Co Limited's record of appeal and appeal. The appeal lay from the High Court at Nairobi (Anne C. Ong'injo, J.) judgment of 21 January 2020 in HCCA No. 257 of 2011. The applicant contended he only established, after correspondence and mapping of the appeal on the e-filing portal, that the respondent's appeal had been lodged out of time without leave, the record of appeal having been served without endorsement of the filing date or certification. The respondent opposed, arguing inordinate delay and failure to act within the statutory 30-day period. Applying the settled Rule 4 principles from Leo Sila Mutiso v Helen Wangari Mwangi, Fakir Mohammed, Wasike v Swala and Chemaringo, and the overriding objective in Abok James Odera, the court found the intended application merited consideration, the delay was not inordinate and was satisfactorily explained, and no undue prejudice would be suffered. The motion was allowed: time was extended by fourteen days to file the intended strike-out application, with costs of the application to be costs in the appeal. The merits of the intended application, including the alleged contravention of Rule 82(1), were left for determination at the inter partes hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Merits of the intended Rule 84 application

Holding

It suffices that the grounds of the intended application merit consideration and that it is not an abuse of process.

Reasoning

The court held that at the extension-of-time stage the applicant need only show the intended application is arguable and not abusive; the full merits, including the alleged contravention of Rule 82(1), would be tested when the intended application is heard.

02

Explanation for delay and prejudice

Holding

The applicant gave a plausible and satisfactory explanation; the delay was not inordinate and no undue prejudice to the respondent was shown.

Reasoning

The applicant only learned the appeal was filed out of time after correspondence with the respondent's counsel and the Registry; the respondent did not allude to any prejudice that extension would cause.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Rule 4 confers an unfettered discretion on the Court to extend time, considering relevant factors including delay, reason for delay, merits and prejudice.
  • Any delay in an extension-of-time application must be satisfactorily explained; no minimum or maximum period is prescribed.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Time extended for the Applicant to file his intended application within fourteen (14) days from the date of the ruling
  2. 2.Costs of the application to be costs in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 4
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 84
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 82(1)

Cases cited (7)

  • Leo Sila Mutiso v Helen Wangari Mwangi
    [1999] 2 EA p231

    Principles for exercise of discretion under Rule 4: length of delay, reason for delay, prejudice to respondent.

  • Fakir Mohammed v Joseph Mugambi and two others
    [2005] eKLR

    Unfettered discretion under Rule 4; relevant but not exhaustive factors.

  • Pothiwalla v Kidogo Basi Housing Cooperative Society Ltd and 31 others
    [2005] eKLR

    Criteria applied in exercise of unfettered discretion under Rule 4.

  • Wasike v Swala
    [1984] KLR p591

    Descending scale of factors: merit, no undue prejudice, delay not inordinate.

  • Joseph Wanjohi Njau v Benson Maina Kabau
    Civil Application No. 97 of 2012 (Unreported)

    Intended application meriting consideration by the Court.

  • Abok James Odera T/A A.J Odera & Associates vs. John Patrick Machira T/A Machira & Co. Advocates
    [2013] eKLR

    Overriding objective in the appellate jurisdiction.

  • Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet
    [2018] eKLR

    Delay must be satisfactorily explained; no minimum or maximum period.

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C.C.A No. 257 of 2011
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 4 and 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time discretion under Rule 4)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Power & Lighting Co Limited v Mwanthi", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Appeal (Application) E674 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/907/eng@2022-04-28

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