Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedMotion dated 26th January, 2024 (Civil Application)· [2024] KECA 682 (KLR)

Kimani v Thuku & 2 others (Civil Application E028 of 2024) [2024] KECA 682 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
14 June 2024
1,102 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 gave a landowner a second chance to appeal after her lawyers missed the deadline, blaming their neglect rather than her.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi by Kantai, JA, on a motion under sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rules 4 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules, seeking extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal out of time. The underlying dispute was an Environment and Land Court suit at Thika over ownership of L.R No. Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 2/4936, in which Eboso, J., delivering judgment on 24th October 2023, found the applicant's registration and subsequent transfer to the 2nd respondent to be tainted, declaring the transfer null and void. The applicant explained the delay by the death of her first advocate during the trial and the failure of successor advocates to file an appeal as instructed or to update her; she only learned of the omission in November 2023 when a respondent filed his own Notice of Appeal, after which new advocates came on record and filed an out-of-time Notice of Appeal on 17th January 2024. Applying the classic four-factor test from Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi, the court found the delay short, the explanation acceptable, the draft memorandum arguable, and no prejudice to the respondents. The motion was allowed: time was extended, the applicant was to lodge a Notice of Appeal within ten days, and costs were made costs in the appeal. No decision below was reviewed or disturbed; this was an interlocutory extension ruling.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal was inordinate and satisfactorily explained

Holding

The delay from judgment on 24th October 2023 to 17th November 2023, when new efforts were made, was short and the explanation (failure of prior advocates to act on instructions) was accepted.

Reasoning

The court measured the delay from the date of the ELC judgment to the date the applicant's new advocates moved to rescue the position, finding only about three weeks. It accepted that the applicant had instructed her then advocates to appeal, that they failed to do so and failed to inform her, and that she only learned of the omission when a respondent filed his own Notice of Appeal. Replacement advocates needed court orders to come on record. This was not inordinate delay.

p. 3
02

Whether the intended appeal was arguable and whether the respondents would suffer prejudice

Holding

The draft memorandum of appeal disclosed reasonable grounds of argument and the court could see no prejudice to the respondents.

Reasoning

Applying the third and fourth factors from Leo Sila Mutiso, the court examined the attached draft memorandum of appeal and found reasonable grounds to be argued, satisfying the arguability threshold, which is low at this stage. On prejudice, it noted that the 2nd respondent had already filed a Notice of Appeal of his own, so allowing the applicant to appeal could not materially disadvantage the respondents. Both factors favoured granting the extension.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The decision whether or not to extend time for appealing is discretionary, and the court considers the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Time extended for filing of appeal
  2. 2.Applicant to lodge a Notice of Appeal within ten (10) days of 14th June, 2024
  3. 3.Costs of the motion to be in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsections 3A, 3B
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrules 4, 47

Cases cited (1)

  • Leo Sila Mutiso vs. Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi
    [1999] 2 EA 231
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court at Thika
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rules 4 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kimani v Thuku & 2 others (Civil Application E028 of 2024) [2024] KECA 682 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Motion dated 26th January, 2024 (Civil Application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/682/eng@2024-06-14

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