Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission v Somaia & 9 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to extend time for an anti-corruption appeal because the applicant's lawyers failed to follow up on the ruling for a year.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant's delay in filing the notice of appeal was sufficiently explained
The delay was not explained; the applicant and its counsel were indolent in failing to follow up with the court for a year after the ruling was delivered
The court found that the circumstances disclosed amounted not merely to a mistake by the applicant but to inaction by counsel who, upon learning the ruling had been delivered, took no steps to follow up with the court. Waiting for the respondents to inform counsel of the outcome for a whole year was lethargical. Had the applicant demonstrated any follow-up with the court, the court would have been persuaded to find in its favour on the ground of lack of knowledge of the ruling.
The applicable principles for extension of time under Rule 4
Rule 4 confers wide discretionary powers; the court considers the length of and reason for delay, arguability of the appeal, and prejudice to the respondent, factors which are not exhaustive
The court applied the settled principles from Leo Sila Mutiso as restated in Donald O. Raballa, and the Supreme Court's fuller statement in Fahim Yasin Twaha, including that extension of time is an equitable remedy for a deserving party, the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis, and the question is decided case by case.
Legal principles established
#- The Court may extend time limited by the Rules on such terms as it thinks just, whether before or after the doing of the act
- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay
- In considering extension of time, the court considers the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding and the degree of prejudice to the respondent
Court orders
#- 1.Refusal to grant the orders sought in the motion dated 23rd March 2022 (extension of time to file notice of appeal and deeming Civil Appeal No. E136 of 2022 duly filed and served)
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondents
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Milimani
- 2 HCCC No. 1111 of 2003
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 4, 42 and 75 of the Court of Appeal Rules; Section 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission v Somaia & 9 others", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Appeal (Application) E093 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/1009/eng@2022-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.