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 AllowedApplication for extension of time, Court of Appeal, Nyeri (Motion under rules 4, 5 and 53 of the Court of Appeal Rules)· [2024] KECA 1442 (KLR)

Speaker, County Assembly of Laikipia & another v Mwangi & another (Civil Application E079 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1442 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
18 October 2024
SKS. Ole Kantai
803 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 Laikipia County bodies six extra weeks to appeal, accepting that switching law firms explained the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an application by way of Motion on notice under rules 4, 5 and 53 of the Court of Appeal Rules and Article 158 of the Constitution, heard by a single judge of the Court of Appeal at Nyeri (S. Ole Kantai, JA), seeking leave to file a notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal out of time against a ruling of Makau, J. delivered on 19th July 2024 in Nyeri ELRC Court Petition No. E019 of 2023. That ruling dismissed the applicants' preliminary objection contesting the court's jurisdiction and the respondents' capacity to originate the petition challenging the establishment of the office of Deputy Clerk (administrative services) in the Laikipia County Assembly. The applicants, the Speaker of the County Assembly of Laikipia and the Laikipia County Service Board, explained a delay of about six weeks by the time taken to change their lawyers, procurement of a new law firm requiring the consent and approval of the County Public Service Board. The respondent opposed, arguing no good reason for delay and that the application was an abuse of court process. Applying the principles in Leo Sila Mutiso vs. Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi - length of delay, reason for delay, chances of appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent - the judge held the delay was not inordinate, the explanation reasonable, the draft memorandum raised reasonable grounds, and the respondents would suffer no prejudice. He extended time to appeal, ordered the notice of appeal to be lodged within ten days, and made costs of the Motion to be in the appeal. Other prayers in the Motion were noted as beyond the province of a single judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants' delay of about six weeks warranted an extension of time to appeal

Holding

The delay was not inordinate and the explanation - that the County Government had to follow procedures to procure a new law firm - was reasonable

Reasoning

The ruling was delivered on 19th July 2024 and the Motion dated 3rd September 2024, a delay of about six weeks. The applicants explained the delay by internal county procedures for procuring new advocates, which required consent and approval of the County Public Service Board. The judge found this a reasonable explanation and there was no inordinate delay.

p. 2
02

Whether the draft memorandum of appeal raised arguable grounds and whether the respondents would suffer prejudice

Holding

The draft memorandum raised reasonable grounds of appeal and the respondents would not be prejudiced by the grant of leave

Reasoning

The judge considered the draft memorandum of appeal containing eight grounds of appeal and found reasonable grounds raised. On prejudice, the fourth Sila Mutiso factor, he could not see how the respondents would be prejudiced if leave were granted. All factors weighed in favour of exercising discretion in the applicants' favour.

p. 2

Legal principles established

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

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Time extended to the applicants to appeal out of time
  2. 2.Notice of appeal to be lodged within ten (10) days of the date of the ruling
  3. 3.Costs of the Motion to be in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRules 4, 5 and 53
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 158

Cases cited (1)

  • Leo Sila Mutiso vs. Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi
    [1999] 2 EA 231
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nyeri
Nyeri ELRC Court Petition No. E019 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 4, 5 and 53 of the Court of Appeal Rules and Article 158 of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Speaker, County Assembly of Laikipia & another v Mwangi & another (Civil Application E079 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1442 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Application for extension of time, Court of Appeal, Nyeri (Motion under rules 4, 5 and 53 of the Court of Appeal Rules). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1442/eng@2024-10-18

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