Owino Jacob Cattwright v Public Service Commission & 1 other
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave a litigant more time to file his appeal, ruling that a lawyer's mistakes shouldn't be punished on the client.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the inactivity of the applicant after issuance of the certificate of delay justified refusal of extension of time
Despite the unexplained delay between 5th June and 5th August 2025, the delay was not long and the court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, refusing to punish him for counsel's ineptitude.
The court applied the Fakir Mohammed factors. It noted the applicant had 60 days to file the record after receiving typed proceedings and the certificate of delay but waited until the 60th day. There was no explanation for the delay between June and August. Nonetheless, considering the shortness of the delay and that the fault lay with counsel's unfamiliarity with Rule 84(2), the discretion was exercised to allow the application with a 14-day filing deadline.
Whether non-service of the notice of appeal under Rule 77 defeated the application
Non-service of the notice of appeal and the letter bespeaking proceedings was acknowledged, but it was not a ground for refusing extension of time; it may only found a separate striking-out application.
The 1st respondent's sole complaint was non-service of the notice of appeal under Rule 77. The court held that an extension-of-time application is not the forum for that complaint; the respondent remains at liberty to move the Court under the relevant provisions for striking out the notice if it wishes to pursue the point.
Legal principles established
#- The factors for exercising discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules in extension-of-time applications are as set out in Fakir Mohammed v Joseph Mugambi: delay, reason for delay, chances of appeal succeeding, prejudice to respondent, effect on public administration, compliance with time limits, resources of parties and public importance, all relevant but not exhaustive.
- An application for extension of time under Rule 4 is not the proper forum to strike out a notice of appeal for want of service; a party wishing to raise non-service must move the Court under the appropriate provisions.
- Where delay is attributable to counsel's ineptitude, the court will not punish the litigant for it, particularly where the delay is not long.
Court orders
#- 1.Extension of time granted to file the record of appeal
- 2.The record of appeal be filed and served within 14 days from the date of the ruling, failing which the leave shall automatically lapse
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (inherent extension-of-time jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Owino Jacob Cattwright v Public Service Commission & 1 other", Case Analysis (2025). Motion on notice dated 5th August 2025 (Court of Appeal, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2030/eng@2025-11-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.