Vijay Morjaria v Ringview Apartments Ltd & 6 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal excused a four-month appeal delay caused by the sudden death of the appellant's sole-practitioner lawyer, allowing the appeal to proceed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the appeal was adequately explained
The delay, though ordinarily inordinate, was candidly, honestly and convincingly explained by the sudden death of the applicant's sole-practitioner counsel and the time needed to obtain a limited grant for a successor.
The applicant's counsel, a sole practitioner, died less than a month after judgment; notice of appeal and request for proceedings were lodged in time. The successor advocate reasonably believed a limited grant was needed to assume the practice. The court found that the death of a sole practitioner creates immediate and compelling challenges making it impossible for pending litigation to proceed smoothly, so the four-month delay was excused.
Effect of nomination of a firm administrator under regulation 14 of the Law Society of Kenya (General Regulations) 2020
A nomination under regulation 14 does not automatically entitle the nominee to run the deceased advocate's firm immediately upon death; a limited grant may reasonably be sought.
The court reasoned that access to the firm's bank accounts, for example, would require more than nomination under the regulation. Ms Anami reasonably believed she had to obtain a limited grant ad colligenda bona to fully discharge her obligations as nominee of the late Dr Mutubwa.
Whether the intended appeal was frivolous
The draft memorandum of appeal was not frivolous; arguability was considered only prima facie.
The court examined the draft memorandum and declined to shut the applicant out, applying the principle that a single Judge cannot determine the merits with finality, which is why chances of success are prefixed with the word 'possibly'.
Comparative prejudice
The applicant stood to suffer greater prejudice - total shut out from the court - than the respondents, whose prejudice was only delay in enjoying the fruits of their ruling.
The respondents held a ruling in their favour and remain entitled to its fruits; the applicant held a constitutionally underpinned right of appeal not timeously pursued due to the death of counsel. Nothing suggested the applicant was acting in bad faith, so the balance of prejudice favoured granting the application.
Legal principles established
#- The discretion to extend time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is wide and unfettered but must be exercised judiciously, guided by the period of delay, reason for delay, prejudice to the respondent, public importance and possibly the chances of success of the intended appeal.
- The death of a sole-practitioner advocate constitutes a compelling circumstance that may justify extension of time, and a nominee under regulation 14 of the LSK General Regulations 2020 does not automatically step into the deceased advocate's shoes immediately upon death.
- A single Judge considering extension of time cannot make final findings on the merits of the intended appeal; arguability is assessed only on a prima facie basis.
Court orders
#- 1.Extension of time granted to file the appeal
- 2.The applicant shall file and serve the record of appeal within twenty one (21) days from the date of the ruling
- 3.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court, Nairobi
- Ruling dated 30th October 2024 in a suit filed 25th January 2024 (ELC suit number not stated)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (single Judge exercising discretion to extend time)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Vijay Morjaria v Ringview Apartments Ltd & 6 others", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/386/eng@2026-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.