Hussein Tuneya Dado v Dhado Gaddae Godhana & 2 others

The Rules grant power to extend or reduce timelines but do not permit deeming documents duly filed or admitting documents out of time. Relying on Salat, the Court held that filing an appeal out of time and then seeking extension is tantamount to asking the Court to remedy an illegality. The Notice of Appeal was therefore incurably void and the appeal built on it collapsed with it.

The Court held that a delay, however short, must be explained. The Appellant asserted he was indisposed from 4th to 12th March 2023 but never disclosed the nature of the indisposition, leaving the Court to speculate. In the modern era one need not meet an advocate physically; conflicting schedules, without more, cannot justify the failure to take a step in an election matter within prescribed time, especially where filing was electronic and no explanation was given for the further lapse between 24th and 27th March.

The Court traced the constitutional genealogy of election timelines through articles 87(1) and 87(2) and sections 75, 76 and 85A of the Elections Act, drawing on Supreme Court authority (Lemanken Aramat, Mary Wambui Munene, Gatirau Peter Munya, Martha Wangari Karua) establishing that timeliness is itself a constitutional principle. An election dispute should ideally be fully determined within a year, hence even discretionary extensions under the Rules must respect the overarching statutory windows.

Because the Notice of Appeal was a nullity and the appeal was struck out, the Court expressly declined to enter into any discussion of the merits, including the alleged ballot-paper shortages, unannounced results at polling stations, and irregular Form 37A and 37B entries raised in the memorandum of appeal.