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 E047 of 2022

Pamwhite Limited v Karomo & another (Suing as the Chairman and Secretary respectively of New Nyali Residents Association) & 4 others

Court of Appeal
16 December 2022
1,106 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal let a developer appeal late because it never got notice of the ruling date, confirming short, explained delays can be excused.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Pamwhite Limited applied under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules for extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal against a ruling of the Environment & Land Court at Mombasa (Naikuni J) delivered on 5 May 2022, upholding a preliminary objection in ELC Case No. 219 of 2020. The applicant explained that the ruling had been reserved for 6 April 2022 but was delivered on 5 May 2022 without notice of the new date; the delay was discovered only when new advocates followed up the matter, after which they requested the ruling and proceedings and lodged a Notice of Appeal on 6/7 June 2022 - about eighteen days late. None of the five respondents filed a response, and the application was heard unopposed on 21 September 2022. Applying the principles in Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangare Mwangi, Nyamweya JA found the delay excusable and not inordinate, given the undisputed lack of notice of the delivery date and the applicant's evidenced intervening actions. On the prospects of the appeal, the court held it need only be shown that plausible grounds exist, not their merit, and found the ground questioning the ELC's jurisdiction to hear an objection to development permission in the first instance arguable. The application was allowed, the Notice of Appeal deemed properly filed and served, with no order as to costs. This is a single-judge interlocutory ruling and does not bind beyond its terms; the substantive appeal remains to be argued.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of about eighteen days in lodging the Notice of Appeal was excusable

Holding

Yes - the deferment of the ruling and its delivery without notice, plus time to engage a new advocate, were sufficient and adequate reasons making the delay excusable and not inordinate.

Reasoning

The court applied the Mutiso principles. The fact of deferment of the ruling and its later delivery without notice of the new date was undisputed. The applicant also evidenced intervening actions by its new advocate, including a letter of 6 June 2022 requesting the ruling and proceedings and a Notice of Appeal filed promptly upon learning of delivery.

02

Whether the intended appeal had plausible grounds of appeal

Holding

Yes - the draft memorandum raised, among others, the jurisdiction of the ELC to hear an objection to development permission in the first instance, which required further argument.

Reasoning

The court held that at this stage it need only be satisfied that plausible grounds exist, not that they would succeed. The jurisdictional ground concerning the ELC's first-instance jurisdiction over objections to development permission was viewed as arguable and warranting further consideration on appeal.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time under Rule 4 is discretionary and assessed on four factors: length of delay, reason for delay, chances of appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent.
  • On chances of success at the extension-of-time stage, the applicant need only show plausible grounds of appeal, not their merit.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Applicant granted leave to file and serve the Notice of Appeal dated June 6, 2022 and lodged on June 7, 2022 out of time
  2. 2.The said Notice of Appeal deemed to have been properly filed and served
  3. 3.No order as to the costs of the application
On appeal from
Environment & Land Court at Mombasa
ELC Case No. 219 of 2020
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (inherent/appellate discretion to extend time)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Pamwhite Limited v Karomo & another (Suing as the Chairman and Secretary respectively of New Nyali Residents Association) & 4 others", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Application E047 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/1376/eng@2022-12-16

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