Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedCivil Application E14 of 2020· [2022] KECA 1297 (KLR)

Rimui v Heritage Investment Limited

Court of Appeal
2 December 2022
SKS. Gatembu KairuPNP. NyamweyaJLJ. Lesiit
2,116 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 let an injured former driver pursue his appeal without paying Kshs 106,900 in fees, because court fees must not block access to justice.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, George Muchai Rimui, a former driver for the respondent, lost his right lower limb in a road traffic accident in February 2013. His suit for compensation in the chief magistrate's court was dismissed in September 2018, and his first appeal to the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa (L. Ndolo, J.) was dismissed on 21 May 2020. He filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal, but the filing fees were assessed at Kshs 106,900/-, which he could not raise. He moved the Court under rule 115(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010, sections 3A(1) and 3B(1)(c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, seeking leave to file his appeal without paying the fees, an order that fees be recovered from any award, and leave to file out of time. The respondent opposed, contending the applicant had not attached medical evidence or proof of indigency, and that extension of time could not be sought simultaneously with a rule 115 application. The court (SG Kairu, P Nyamweya and JW Lessit, JJA) held that since the respondent admitted the amputation, a medical report would be a mere formality; that the applicant had demonstrated indigency; and that article 48 of the Constitution, which requires fees not to impede access to justice, supported the exercise of discretion in his favour. Although the record of appeal was out of time under rule 84(1), the delay was sufficiently explained by a certificate of delay, and article 159 came to the applicant's aid. The application was allowed: leave to file without paying the fees, leave to file out of time, and costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Indigency and relief from court fees under rule 115(1)

Holding

The applicant, rendered indigent by loss of his leg and inability to work as a driver, showed he cannot raise the assessed fees and deserved the court's discretion.

Reasoning

The court applied rule 115(1), requiring proof of lack of means and a reasonable possibility of success. The applicant's amputation, loss of driving employment, and exhaustion of savings established indigency. Article 48 on reasonable fees and article 159 on substantive justice reinforced the exercise of discretion in his favour.

02

Necessity of a medical report

Holding

A medical report was unnecessary where the disability is admitted by the respondent.

Reasoning

The purpose of a medical report at this stage would only be to confirm the amputation, which the respondent conceded. Requiring it would be a mere formality and would not add value to the application.

p. 3
03

Extension of time to lodge the record of appeal

Holding

Although out of time, the delay in lodging the record of appeal was sufficiently explained by the certificate of delay, and leave was granted.

Reasoning

Under rule 84(1) the applicant had 60 days from lodgment of the notice of appeal, excluding the period covered by the certificate of delay. On either computation he was out of time, but the notice of appeal was filed in time and the delay was sufficiently explained, so leave was deserved.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Rule 115(1) relief requires satisfaction that the appellant lacks means and that the appeal is not without reasonable possibility of success.
  • Where the respondent acknowledges the disability, a medical report is unnecessary and a mere formality in a pauper application.
  • Article 48 obliges the state not to impede access to justice through fees, supporting relief for indigent appellants.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appellant be allowed to file his appeal without paying the court fees of Kshs 106,900/- as assessed vide invoice customer reference number EXLGNQ7H
  2. 2.The applicant is granted leave to file his appeal out of time
  3. 3.Costs be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 115(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 84(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 107
  • Court of Appeal Rules 2022rule 120(1)
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsection 3A(1)
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsection 3B(1)(c)
  • Constitution of Kenyaarticle 48
  • Constitution of Kenyaarticle 159

Cases cited (2)

  • Francis Egosangwa Kaguli v Barusi Kaguli
    (2014) eKLR

    Granting a similar pauper application by an applicant who lost his sight and could not pay fees

  • Benson Muchu Gichuki v Norwegian Peoples Aid
    [2012] eKLR

    Definition of a pauper and the need to fully explain one's circumstances

On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
ELRC Civil Appeal No 11 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 115(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010; sections 3A(1) and 3B(1)(c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rimui v Heritage Investment Limited", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Application E14 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/1297/eng@2022-12-02

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