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 AppealDismissedNotice of motion dated December 22, 2020· [2023] KECA 832 (KLR)

The Registered Trustees of Micro Enterprise Support Programme Trust (MESPT) v Kyome Fresh Co. Limited & 3 others (Civil Application 407 of 2020) [2023] KECA 832 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
7 July 2023
1,242 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 forgive a seven-month late appeal because 'Covid-19' alone, without proof of real effort, is not a valid excuse for delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant moved the Court of Appeal by notice of motion dated December 22, 2020 seeking enlargement of time to file and serve a notice of appeal against a High Court ruling (Kasango J) delivered on April 29, 2020, in a dispute arising from a claim of Kshs.9,346,334/35 said to have been borrowed and utilized by the defendants, with the 1st respondent having been placed under receivership. The applicant attributed the delay to Covid-19 office closures, a breakdown in communication with its counsel, and the parties' out-of-court settlement efforts, and asserted that the intended appeal was arguable. The 2nd and 3rd respondents opposed, contending the delay of over 8 months (or 7 months by the court's computation) was inordinate, that inaction by counsel was inexcusable, and that no substantive grounds for appeal were disclosed. Okwengu JA, sitting singly under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, applied the Supreme Court's principles in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Salat vs IEBC: extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to deserving parties who lay a basis to the court's satisfaction. The court found that the notice of appeal, dated December 10, 2020, was lodged about 7 months after the May 13, 2020 deadline; that the Covid-19 explanation was unsupported by any demonstrated effort to communicate by email or with the Court; and that Covid-era practice guidelines had been available. Concluding the delay was unreasonable and unexplained, the court rejected the motion. No costs order was stated.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of about 7 months in filing the notice of appeal was inordinate and explained

Holding

The delay was unreasonable and the applicant failed to provide a plausible explanation; the Covid-19 excuse and advocate inaction did not justify the extension.

Reasoning

The ruling was delivered on April 29, 2020 and the notice was due by May 13, 2020, but the notice was dated December 10, 2020, about 7 months late. The applicant blamed Covid-19 office closures and a communication breakdown but showed no effort to communicate with its advocate by email or with the Court. Covid Court practice guidelines were in place, so the delay reflected mere inaction by the applicant and its advocate.

p. 3
02

The principles governing exercise of the court's discretion under rule 4 to extend time

Holding

The Salat principles apply: extension is equitable, requires a laid basis, case-by-case assessment of reasons for delay, prejudice, undue delay, and public interest in appropriate cases.

Reasoning

The court adopted the Supreme Court's statement of principles in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Salat as the framework for the rule 4 discretion. Applying those principles, the 7-month delay was unreasonable and unexplained, so the discretion could not be exercised in the applicant's favour and the motion failed.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time under rule 4 is an equitable remedy, not a right, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis and offering a reasonable explanation for the delay to the satisfaction of the Court.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant's motion for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal is rejected/dismissed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 4
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 75(2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Cargill Nawal vs National Agricultural Export Development Board
    [2015] eKLR
  • Edith Gichugu Koine vs Stephen Njagi Thoiti
    [2014] eKLR
  • Moroo Polymers Limited vs Wilfred Kasyoki Willis
    [2019] eKLR
  • Grindlays Bank International (K) Limited & Anor vs George Barbour
    [1996] eKLR
  • Baber Alibhai Mawji vs Sultan Hasham Lalji & Anor
    [1995] eKLR
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Salat vs Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others
    [2014] eKLR
On appeal from
High Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (discretion to extend time for the doing of any act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "The Registered Trustees of Micro Enterprise Support Programme Trust (MESPT) v Kyome Fresh Co. Limited & 3 others (Civil Application 407 of 2020) [2023] KECA 832 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Notice of motion dated December 22, 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/832/eng@2023-07-07

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