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 AppealStruck OutNot stated in the judgment (application dated 11th December 2023 filed within the appeal)· [2024] KECA 1227 (KLR)

Wangui & 4 others v NCBA Bank Kenya PLC (Civil Appeal (Application) E858 of 2023) [2024] KECA 1227 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
20 September 2024
1,063 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

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out an extension-of-time application because the appeal lacked a Notice of Appeal, confirming you cannot fix that defect with a Rule 4 application.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a decision of a single Judge of Appeal (S. Gatembu Kairu, JA) of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered on 20th September 2024, on the applicants' notice of motion dated 11th December 2023 seeking under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules leave to file their Notice of Appeal out of time following a High Court ruling of 13th October 2023. The applicants, through Mr Ongoto, explained the omission as an oversight by their advocate's clerk, relied on the principle that clients should not suffer for their advocate's mistakes, and stressed the substantial sums (over Kshs. 200 million) at stake. The respondent objected that the application was anchored on an appeal filed without a Notice of Appeal and was therefore incompetent, the proper course being to withdraw and commence afresh. The Judge restated the settled Rule 4 principles from Fakir Mohamed v Joseph Mugambi and the Supreme Court's decision in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC, that extension of time is an equitable, discretionary remedy requiring an adequate explanation for delay. However, accepting the jurisdictional objection, and citing Githinji, JA in Equity Bank v West Link Mbo that a Notice of Appeal is the prerequisite for mounting an appeal, the Judge upheld the objection, held the appeal incompetent, struck out the application with costs to the respondent, and declined to address its merits. The underlying High Court ruling was not disturbed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether extension of time can be granted to regularise an appeal filed without a Notice of Appeal

Holding

No. Such an appeal is incompetent, and the proper course is to withdraw it and commence the process afresh; the Court declined to entertain the Rule 4 application built upon it.

Reasoning

The court accepted the well-established principles from Fakir Mohamed and Salat governing extension of time, but held that the threshold question was the competence of the underlying appeal. Relying on Equity Bank v West Link Mbo, it treated the Notice of Appeal as the prerequisite for mounting an appeal, adopted the respondent's jurisdictional objection, and struck out the application rather than address its merits.

p. 3
02

The applicable principles for extension of time under Rule 4

Holding

Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right; delay must be explained to the satisfaction of the court, and prejudice, public interest and absence of further delay are relevant considerations.

Reasoning

The court restated the Fakir Mohamed factors (length of and reason for delay, chances of the appeal, prejudice to the respondent, effect on public administration, compliance with time limits) and the Supreme Court's Salat formulation that extension is discretionary and case-specific. It emphasised judicial exercise of the unfettered discretion on the facts of each case.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The prerequisite for mounting an appeal to the Court of Appeal in civil cases is the lodging of a Notice of Appeal; an application for extension of time cannot cure an appeal instituted without one
  • The Rule 4 discretion, though unfettered, must be exercised judicially on the facts of each case

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 11th December 2023 is struck out with costs to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 4

Cases cited (10)

  • Vishva Stone Suppliers Company Limited v RSR Stone [2006] Limited
    [2020] eKLR
  • Apungu Arthur Kibira v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission v Jane Cheperenger & 2 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Fakir Mohamed v Joseph Mugambi & 2 others
    [2005] eKLR
  • Mutiso v Mwangi
    Civil Appl. Nai. 255 of 1997 (UR)
  • Mwangi v Kenya Airways Ltd
    [2003] KLR 486
  • Major Joseph Mwereri Igweta v Murika M’Ethare & Attorney General
    Civil Appl. NAI. 8/2000 (UR)
  • Murai v Wainaina (No 4)
    [1982] KLR 38
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 7 others, Supreme Court Application No. 16 of 2014
    [2014] eKLR
  • Equity Bank Limited v West Link Mbo Limited
    Civil Application No. 78 of 2011 [2013] eKLR
On appeal from
High Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time jurisdiction of a single Judge of Appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wangui & 4 others v NCBA Bank Kenya PLC (Civil Appeal (Application) E858 of 2023) [2024] KECA 1227 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 11th December 2023 filed within the appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1227/eng@2024-09-20

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