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 AppealDismissedCivil Application E079 of 2021

In re Estate of Joshua Mbira Githehu (Deceased) - Josiah Wanene Nduta v Wilfred Mukoma Mbira & 5 others

Court of Appeal
21 October 2022
1,152 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 refused to extend time to appeal because the applicant had no valid Notice of Appeal on record and gave vague Covid-19 explanations.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a single-Judge application under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking extension of time to lodge a Memorandum and Record of Appeal against a ruling of the High Court (Muchelule, J) dated 8th April 2020 in Succession Cause No. 131 of 1984 concerning the estate of Joshua Mbira Githehu. The applicant attributed the delay to court closures during the Covid-19 pandemic. The respondents opposed, arguing inordinate and inexcusable delay and, crucially, that no proper Notice of Appeal existed on record, without which no Memorandum and Record of Appeal could be lodged. SichaLE, JA applied the settled Fakir Mohamed principles: length of delay, cause of delay, possibility of the appeal succeeding and prejudice. He found a delay of about 11 months inordinate, and the Covid-19 explanation vague because the applicant gave no dates for the alleged court closure or for obtaining the ruling. The Notice of Appeal was itself dated some seven months after the ruling and it was unclear whether it was ever filed, so no valid Notice of Appeal was on record. The Judge declined to extend time and dismissed the motion with no order as to costs, this being a succession matter. The decision affirms that extension of time cannot cure the absence of a valid Notice of Appeal.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to lodge a Memorandum and Record of Appeal out of time under Rule 4
  2. 2.Whether the delay of about 11 months was explained
  3. 3.Whether a valid Notice of Appeal exists on record to support the extension sought

Key legal issues

#
01

Exercise of discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Holding

The application failed because the delay of about 11 months was inordinate and unexplained, and no valid Notice of Appeal was on record

Reasoning

The court applied the Fakir Mohamed principles: length of delay, cause of delay, possibility of appeal succeeding and prejudice. The delay from the 8th April 2020 ruling to the 10th March 2021 motion was inordinate; the Covid-19 explanation was vague, with no dates given for closure or receipt of the ruling. Critically, the Notice of Appeal was itself filed late and it was unclear it was ever lodged, so there was no valid Notice of Appeal to support the extension sought.

02

Necessity of a valid Notice of Appeal

Holding

A Memorandum and Record of Appeal cannot be lodged out of time where no proper Notice of Appeal exists

Reasoning

The respondents argued, and the single Judge accepted, that the prayers sought extension only for the Memorandum and Record of Appeal with no mention of the Notice of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal was dated some 7 months after the ruling and its filing was not evident from the record, leaving no valid Notice of Appeal on record and rendering the extension futile.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time cannot be granted to lodge a Memorandum and Record of Appeal where there is no valid Notice of Appeal on record
  • The Rule 4 discretion is wide but must be exercised judiciously, considering length and cause of delay, possibility of appeal succeeding and prejudice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant's motion dated 10th March 2021 is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs, this being a succession matter

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
High Court Succession Cause No. 131 of 1984
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3, 3A, 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rules 4, 82 and 83 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Relief refused

#

Extension of time to lodge Memorandum and Record of Appeal

Inordinate unexplained delay and no valid Notice of Appeal on record

p. 3

Costs

No order as to costs, this being a succession matter

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

The principles upon which this Court exercises its discretion under Rule 4 are firmly settled.
p. 2Rule 4 discretion
The Court cannot therefore grant extension of time to lodge Memorandum and Record of Appeal when there is no valid Notice of Appeal on record.
p. 3Notice of Appeal prerequisite
Accordingly, the applicant’s motion dated 10th March 2021, is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs this being a succession matter.
p. 3Final orders

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Conflicting dates for the Notice of Appeal within the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "In re Estate of Joshua Mbira Githehu (Deceased) - Josiah Wanene Nduta v Wilfred Mukoma Mbira & 5 others", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Application E079 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/1141/eng@2022-10-21

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