Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2021] KEELC 3012 (KLR)

William Njau Kamau v Kimuri Housing Co. Ltd & another [2021] KEELC 3012 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 May 2021
KBK. Bor
379 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to let a late suit proceed because Covid-19 restrictions alone did not explain the entire delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, Michael Kamau Kinga, applied by notice of motion dated 1 July 2020 for leave to file a suit out of time. He explained that he had instructed his advocates, who prepared the pleadings, but before filing, the Government imposed movement restrictions in and out of the Nairobi Metropolitan area to curb the spread of Covid-19. The application was supported by an affidavit of his advocate, who deponed that he was at his rural home in Machakos County during the restrictions and, being the only signatory to his firm's bank account, could not access funds to pay court filing fees. He said he only returned to the office on 22 June 2020 after obtaining his Law Society of Kenya card. A supplementary affidavit sworn on 17 December 2020 attached the intended draft plaint and list of documents, said to have been inadvertently omitted earlier. The court found the explanation insufficient: the application did not disclose why the suit could not be filed before April 2020 when the restrictions were imposed, and it was unclear when instructions were given and when the pleadings were prepared. The court accordingly declined to exercise its discretion in the Applicant's favour and dismissed the application dated 1 July 2020 in its entirety. There was no appearance for the Respondents; the judgment was delivered virtually at Nairobi on 25 May 2021 by K. Bor, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether Covid-19 movement restrictions justified the delayed filing of the suit

Holding

No - the Applicant failed to account for the delay before the restrictions and for the lack of clarity on when instructions were given and pleadings prepared

Reasoning

The court found the application silent on why the suit could not be filed before April 2020. It was unclear when the advocate was instructed and when documents were prepared, and the explanation about being the sole bank signatory stranded in Machakos did not discharge the burden of explaining the full period of delay. Discretion was therefore withheld.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant seeking extension of time must satisfactorily explain the entire period of delay, including the period before the intervening circumstance relied upon arose

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 1/7/2020 was declined in its entirety; leave to file suit out of time was not granted
Jurisdiction invoked
Discretionary power to extend time for filing suit (statutory provision not specified in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "William Njau Kamau v Kimuri Housing Co. Ltd & another [2021] KEELC 3012 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3012/eng@2021-05-25

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