Jim's Fresh Vegetable Growers & Exporters Limited . Applicant v Locland Limited & 1 other
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal dismissed an attempt to revive a three-year-delayed appeal, confirming that even a strong appeal fails without a good explanation for delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Correct rule governing extension of time applications
The application, though brought under Rule 5(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, properly falls under Rule 4, which confers jurisdiction to extend time
The applicant misidentified the enabling rule. Rule 4 empowers the Court to extend time for doing any act authorised or required by the Rules, whether before or after the act is done. Rule 5(2) concerns stay and other interlocutory relief pending appeal; extension of time to lodge a record of appeal is a Rule 4 matter. The court proceeded to determine it under Rule 4.
Whether the delay was inordinate and excusable
The delay of more than three years was inordinate, and the reasons given (director's illness, delayed file handover, archived file) were not excusable
The Notice of Appeal was filed on 12th May 2020; the record of appeal was due within sixty days under Rule 84, yet the application was filed on 26th October 2023. The director's Covid-19 illness in 2020 did not incapacitate the company from giving instructions to Kaplan & Stratton Advocates, who were aware of the sixty-day deadline. The former advocates' failure to hand over the file and the archived court file did not suffice.
Arguability of the intended appeal
The intended appeal was arguable, but arguability alone does not warrant extension of time without a satisfactory explanation for delay
The threshold for arguability is low - the word 'possibly' qualifies it - and the court found the grounds of appeal arguable. However, citing Odongo v Housing Finance and Reliance Bank v Grandways Ventures, even good appeals must be filed within prescribed periods, and an arguable appeal cannot override the onus of explaining the delay.
Legal principles established
#- Applications for extension of time to lodge a record of appeal fall under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, not Rule 5(2)(b)
- Extension of time is discretionary and not automatic; the court considers length of delay, reasons, prejudice, conduct, and arguability
- An arguable appeal does not entitle an applicant to extension of time without a satisfactory explanation for the delay
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 26th October 2023 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- ELC No. 277 of 2011
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Jims Fresh Vegetable Growers and Exporters Limited v Locland Limited & another (Environment & Land Case 277 of 2011) [2024] KEELC 6216 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 6216 (KLR)26 Sept 2024applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jim's Fresh Vegetable Growers & Exporters Limited . Applicant v Locland Limited & 1 other", Case Analysis (2024). Civil Application dated 26th October 2023 (arising from ELC No. 277 of 2011). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/608/eng@2024-05-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.