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 AppealAllowedNot stated in the judgment (Motion arising from Embu HCCA 21 of 2024 consolidated with HCCA 22 of 2024 and HCCA 24 of 2024)· [2024] KECA 1349 (KLR)

Ngari & 2 others v David (Civil Application E074 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1349 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
3 October 2024
851 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 gave a family two extra weeks' grace to file an appeal, showing courts will forgive short, honestly explained delays.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a single-judge application under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010 and sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act seeking an extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal against a judgment of Njuguna, J. delivered at the High Court at Embu on 24th July 2024. That judgment, in consolidated appeals (HCCA 21 of 2024 with HCCA 22 and 24 of 2024), partially succeeded in apportioning liability and awarding damages for a road traffic accident in which one person died and another was injured. The applicants, legal representatives of the deceased, deponed through their advocate that the judgment was delivered in his absence and was only obtained on 6th August 2024; the notice of appeal was filed on 7th August 2024, about two weeks after delivery. Applying the classic principles in Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi, S. Ole Kantai, JA held that the delay was not inordinate and accepted the explanation offered. The court could not assess the chances of success because no draft memorandum of appeal was annexed, and there was no material showing prejudice to the respondent, who was served but filed neither a replying affidavit nor submissions. The application was allowed: notice of appeal to be lodged within seven days, the record of appeal within thirty days thereafter, and costs of the motion were made costs in the appeal. This is an interlocutory discretionary ruling and does not disturb the High Court judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of about two weeks in lodging the notice of appeal was inordinate and satisfactorily explained

Holding

The delay was not inordinate; the reason offered for the delay was accepted.

Reasoning

Judgment was delivered on 24th July 2024 and the notice of appeal was dated 7th August 2024, roughly two weeks later. The High Court judgment did not indicate whether parties were represented at delivery, and counsel deponed that it was delivered in his absence and was only accessed on 6th August 2024. The court found this explanation acceptable and held there was no inordinate delay.

p. 2
02

Whether the intended appeal had chances of success and whether the respondent would be prejudiced

Holding

The court could not assess the chances of success because no draft memorandum of appeal was annexed, and there was no material showing prejudice to the respondent, who did not respond.

Reasoning

The applicants did not annex a draft Memorandum of Appeal, leaving the court unable to weigh the merits of the intended appeal. The respondent was served with the application and hearing notice but filed neither submissions nor a replying affidavit, leaving no material on which to assess prejudice. The court nonetheless found the applicants entitled to the extension.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • 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.Extension of time granted to the applicants to lodge an appeal
  2. 2.Notice of appeal to be lodged within seven (7) days
  3. 3.Record of appeal to be lodged within thirty (30) days thereafter
  4. 4.Costs of the Motion to be in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsections 3A and 3B
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 4

Cases cited (1)

  • Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi
    [1999] 2 EA 231
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Embu
HCCA 21 of 2024 (consolidated with HCCA 22 of 2024 and HCCA 24 of 2024)
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ngari & 2 others v David (Civil Application E074 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1349 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (Motion arising from Embu HCCA 21 of 2024 consolidated with HCCA 22 of 2024 and HCCA 24 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1349/eng@2024-10-03

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