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 AppealPartially AllowedMotion dated 20th June, 2019· [2024] KECA 511 (KLR)

Maithya v Saj Ceramics Limited (Civil Application 182 of 2019) [2024] KECA 511 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
26 April 2024
SKS. ole KantaiPNP. NyamweyaJMJ. Mativo
749 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a Certificate of Delay cannot excuse missing court-ordered appeal deadlines; Saj Ceramics' appeal was declared withdrawn.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an interlocutory Motion before the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, brought under Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rules 42, 83 and 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010, by Joel Maithya, the applicant, seeking an order that the Notice of Appeal lodged by Saj Ceramics Limited, the respondent, on 28th March, 2017 be deemed as withdrawn. Judgment had been entered for the applicant against the respondent on 30th June, 2016. A ruling by Sichale, JA on 24th March, 2017 granted the respondent leave to file a Notice of Appeal within 7 days and a record of appeal within 30 days. The Notice of Appeal was filed in time, but the record of appeal was not lodged until 8th July, 2019, far outside the ordered 30 days. The respondent relied on a Certificate of Delay showing the proceedings took 967 days to prepare, arguing it should be given time to prosecute its appeal and that the application should be struck out. The Court held that the Certificate of Delay was of no assistance: even computing the 30 days from the date the Certificate was issued, the filing remained out of time. The Court allowed the Motion, deemed the Notice of Appeal withdrawn, and awarded costs to the applicant. The decision binds lower courts and litigants to the proposition that court-ordered timelines for filing records of appeal are not extended by delays in preparation of proceedings evidenced by a Certificate of Delay. The judgment is a single decision of the full bench of three Judges of Appeal with no separate opinions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the record of appeal filed on 8th July, 2019 was out of time

Holding

The record of appeal was not filed within the 30 days ordered, and the Certificate of Delay could not cure the default

Reasoning

The Court had ordered on 24th March, 2017 that the record of appeal be filed within 30 days of the ruling. The record was only lodged on 8th July, 2019. The Certificate of Delay showed proceedings took 967 days to prepare, but even computing the 30 days from the date of the Certificate's issue, the filing was still outside the period. The respondent's default therefore stood and the sanction of deeming the Notice of Appeal withdrawn applied.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a court order fixes timelines for filing a record of appeal, a Certificate of Delay does not extend those timelines; failure to file within the ordered period results in the Notice of Appeal being deemed withdrawn

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Appeal lodged on 28th March, 2017 is deemed as withdrawn
  2. 2.The Motion dated 20th June, 2019 is allowed
  3. 3.Costs of the Motion awarded to the applicant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSections 3A and 3B
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010Rules 42, 83 and 84
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rules 42, 83 and 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maithya v Saj Ceramics Limited (Civil Application 182 of 2019) [2024] KECA 511 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Motion dated 20th June, 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/511/eng@2024-04-26

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