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 63 of 2020· [2022] KECA 1007 (KLR)

Kenya Wildlife Services v Electrical Services Ltd

Court of Appeal
23 September 2022
797 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed KWS to appeal late because the Covid-19 court lockdown explained the four-month filing delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nyeri (M'Inoti, JA) on an application by Kenya Wildlife Services for extension of time to file a notice and record of appeal out of time against a High Court judgment (Matheka, J., dated March 12, 2020) awarding Electrical Services Ltd Kshs 2,119,365 being interest on delayed payment, costs and interest. The applicant explained that the Covid-19 lockdown of the Judiciary, effected through the Chief Justice's Internal Memo of March 15, 2020, prevented it from filing the notice of appeal or obtaining certified proceedings within the prescribed time; it prepared the letter seeking proceedings on March 17, 2020 but could not access the court until restrictions eased in June 2020, filing the motion on July 15, 2020. The respondent, though served, filed neither a replying affidavit nor submissions, and the application was treated as unopposed. Applying the established factors from Leo Sila Mutiso and Fakir Mohamed - length of delay, reason for delay, public interest, prejudice and prima facie prospects - the court held that the roughly four-month delay, though ordinarily inordinate, was candidly and satisfactorily explained by the Judiciary lockdown; the draft memorandum showed the intended appeal was not frivolous; and the unopposed respondent could not demonstrate prejudice. The application was allowed, with the applicant directed to file and serve the notice of appeal within 14 days, and costs of the application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal. The decision does not disturb the High Court judgment; it merely opens the gate to an appeal against it.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Covid-19 Judiciary lockdown was a sufficient explanation for a four-month delay in filing the notice of appeal

Holding

Yes; the delay, though ordinarily inordinate, was satisfactorily explained by the Chief Justice's Internal Memo barring access to the Judiciary.

Reasoning

The court held that while four months' delay in filing a one-page document would ordinarily be inordinate, the critical factor is the explanation. The applicant annexed the Chief Justice's Internal Memo of March 15, 2020 effectively barring access to the Judiciary, and the court was satisfied the delay was candidly and satisfactorily explained.

02

Whether the intended appeal was frivolous and whether the unopposed respondent would suffer prejudice

Holding

The intended appeal was not frivolous on the face of the draft memorandum, and the respondent, having filed nothing in opposition, could not be said to suffer prejudice.

Reasoning

The court examined the draft memorandum of appeal, which contended that the learned judge misapprehended the principles on interpretation of costs and ignored evidence. It concluded the appeal was not frivolous and, the application being unopposed, no prejudice to the respondent was established.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The single judge's discretion to extend time is wide and unfettered, intended to ameliorate hardship and injustice, and must be exercised judiciously.
  • In extension-of-time applications the court considers the period of delay, reason for delay, public interest, prejudice and prima facie prospects of the intended appeal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time granted to file the notice and record of appeal
  2. 2.Applicant directed to file and serve the notice of appeal within 14 days from the date of the ruling
  3. 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal

Authorities

#

Cases cited (2)

  • Leo Sila Mutiso v Hellen Wangari Mwangi
    C.A. Nai. 251 of 1997

    Factors considered in extension of time applications

  • Fakir Mohamed v Joseph Mugambi & 2 Others
    CA No. Nai. 332 of 2004

    Factors considered in extension of time applications

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nyeri
HCCC No. 08 of 2000
Jurisdiction invoked
Discretion of a single judge of the Court of Appeal to extend time for filing notice and record of appeal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Wildlife Services v Electrical Services Ltd", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Application 63 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/1007/eng@2022-09-23

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