Samson Chirume & 3 others v Joseph Sulubu [2015] KEELC 609 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to extend time to appeal, ruling that litigants cannot blame their advocate for missing a judgment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants gave a plausible reason for the delay in filing the intended appeal
The explanation that the former advocate never informed them of the judgment was not plausible; parties must be vigilant and cannot hide behind their advocate's failure one year after judgment.
The court noted judgment was delivered on 2 July 2013 and the Applicants only claimed awareness on 31 July 2014 upon being served. No affidavit was sworn by the former advocate confirming the alleged failure to inform. The court held that a litigant who instructs an advocate must be vigilant and cannot use the advocate, a mere agent, as a shield for ignorance of a judgment a year later.
Whether the Applicants' conduct disentitled them to the equitable discretion to extend time
The Applicants never appealed the Minister's 2005 decision under Section 29(1) of the Land Adjudication Act, nor the Magistrate's judgment, showing no interest in pursuing their perceived rights; the lower court was merely enforcing the Minister's decision.
The court observed that the Applicants failed to appeal the Minister's decision of 18 May 2005 ordering payment of Kshs.20,000 per acre, and equally failed to appeal the Magistrate's judgment. There being no law requiring the Minister's decision to be adopted by a court, the lower court suit was simply enforcement of that decision. The Applicants therefore had no good reason for extension of time.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time to file an appeal is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the discretion of the court, not a right.
- A litigant cannot blame his advocate for ignorance of a judgment; a party who instructs an advocate must remain vigilant.
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 1st September 2014 is dismissed with costs
- On appeal from
- Senior Resident Magistrate's Court, Kilifi
- Kilifi SRMCC No. 188 of 2008
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion to extend time for filing an appeal (extension of time application)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Samson Chirume & 3 others v Joseph Sulubu [2015] KEELC 609 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Application dated 1st September 2014 (arising from Kilifi SRMCC No. 188 of 2008). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2015/609/eng@2015-03-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.