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 AppealDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2024] KECA 161 (KLR)

Nguma Charo Chengo v The Standard Group Plc

Court of Appeal of Kenya
23 February 2024
KLK. I. Laibuta
506 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal dismissed an extension-of-time application because the applicant showed no arguable appeal or grounds, making the motion incompetent.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi delivered by Dr. K. I. Laibuta, JA, on 23rd February 2024. The applicant moved under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules for leave to file out of time a notice of appeal dated 5th May 2023, and for the notice lodged on 29th May 2023 to be deemed duly filed and served. The underlying judgment sought to be appealed was delivered on 26th April 2023. Counsel for the applicant filed the notice through the Court's online portal on 5th May 2023 but, after a delay in receiving the stamped copy, delivered hard copies which were endorsed as lodged on 29th May 2023, after expiry of the prescribed period. The applicant relied on the authorities of Vishva Stone Suppliers Company Limited vs. RSR Stone [2006] Limited and Kiu & Another vs. Khaemba & 3 Others, which lay down four principles for rule 4 applications: arguability of the intended appeal, reasons for the delay, whether the delay was inordinate, and prejudice to the respondent. The respondent filed no reply or submissions. The court found nothing on the record to demonstrate an arguable appeal, noting that arguability is the threshold requirement to be satisfied before the other factors arise. In the absence of a memorandum of appeal or even a single ground of appeal, the motion was held incompetent and dismissed with no orders as to costs. No decision on the merits of any appeal was made, and the decision below was not disturbed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Court should exercise its discretion under rule 4 to extend time for filing a notice of appeal

Holding

No. The applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal, which must be satisfied before the other factors are considered; the motion was incompetent.

Reasoning

The court restated the four principles from the cited authorities for rule 4 applications: arguability, reasons for the delay, whether the delay was inordinate, and undue prejudice to the respondent. The applicant's record contained no memorandum of appeal and no ground of appeal, so the threshold requirement of arguability was not met and the remaining factors did not arise.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, an applicant must first satisfy the arguability of the intended appeal before the other factors (reasons for delay, whether delay was inordinate, and prejudice to the respondent) are considered
  • An extension-of-time motion unsupported by a memorandum of appeal or any ground of intended appeal is incompetent and liable to dismissal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Motion as presented is incompetent and is dismissed with no orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nguma Charo Chengo v The Standard Group Plc", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/161/eng@2024-02-23

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