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 AppealDismissedCivil Application (not numbered in the judgment as provided)· [2023] KECA 947 (KLR)

Kamondo v Maina (Civil Application E110 of 2022) [2023] KECA 947 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
28 July 2023
FSF. Sicha
1,083 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

#

The Court of Appeal refused to forgive a missed appeal deadline, ruling that not knowing appeal timelines is not a valid excuse, even for self-represented litigants.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an application before a single judge of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, decided on 28th July 2023, in which Samuel Muiruri Kamondo sought leave to file an appeal out of time and to have his Notice of Appeal deemed duly filed. The application, brought under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, arose from orders made on 7th March 2022 in ELC Case No. 371 of 2013 directing the applicant to demolish structures on suit land within 30 days, failing which he would be forcibly evicted and liable to three months' imprisonment. He filed his Notice of Appeal on 1st April 2022, outside the prescribed period, explaining the delay on the ground that he was a 72-year-old man acting in person and unacquainted with appeal timelines. The respondent filed no replying affidavit. The judge set out at length the well-settled Rule 4 principles as distilled in Vishva Stone Supplies Company Limited v RSR Stone, including that the discretion is unfettered, must be exercised judicially, and that any delay must be satisfactorily explained. However, the court held that ignorance of the law is not a defence, and that the applicant's lack of awareness of the timelines was not a valid reason warranting a favourable exercise of discretion. The motion was found to be without merit and was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The stay prayers were noted to fall outside the purview of a single judge and were not considered.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether ignorance of appeal timelines constitutes a plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay under Rule 4

Holding

It does not; ignorance of the law is not a defence and cannot ground a favourable exercise of discretion.

Reasoning

The applicant, a 72-year-old man who acted in person, deponed that he was unaware of the timelines for lodging appeals. The court acknowledged the misfortune but held that ignorance of the law is not a defence. Although the discretion under Rule 4 is wide and unfettered, it must be exercised judicially on valid and clear reasons, and the applicant offered none beyond his lack of awareness of the law.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Ignorance of the law, including ignorance of timelines for lodging an appeal, is not a valid reason to justify extension of time under Rule 4.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 5th April, 2022 seeking enlargement of time is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 4

Cases cited (2)

  • Vishva Stone Supplies Company Limited v RSR Stone
    Civil Application No. 55 of 2020
  • Githere v Ndiriri
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court
ELC Case No. 371 of 2013
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (single judge, extension of time)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kamondo v Maina (Civil Application E110 of 2022) [2023] KECA 947 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Civil Application (not numbered in the judgment as provided). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/947/eng@2023-07-28

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