Joshua Jaoko Oketch v Erastus Opiyo Otieno [2021] KEELC 4760 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court refused to extend time to appeal because the same request was already pending before the Court of Appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the trial court could entertain an application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal when a similar application was pending before the Court of Appeal
The court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application because the Court of Appeal was already seized of the same matter via Civil Application No. 147 of 2020
The court held that once the Court of Appeal is seized of the same issue (extension of time/leave relating to the same judgment), the High Court cannot assume parallel jurisdiction. Relying on Desai v Warsama, Samwel Kamau Macharia and Lillian S v Caltex Oil, the judge reasoned that jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be self-arrogated, so the court could not 'take one more step' in the matter.
Whether the applicant's right of access to justice and fair hearing warranted the extension sought
Although Articles 48 and 50(1) entitle both parties to access to justice and fair hearing, those rights did not confer jurisdiction on the court to entertain the application
The court acknowledged the constitutional rights to access to justice and fair hearing, but subordinated them to the jurisdictional bar arising from the pending Court of Appeal application. It also noted that a Notice of Appeal had already been filed, meaning an appeal was deemed filed, further rendering the extension application unnecessary for this court to determine.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot assume jurisdiction where another court of competent jurisdiction is already seized of the same matter
- Jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution or written law and cannot be arrogated
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 3rd October 2020 and filed on 9th October 2020 is declined/dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of Civil Application number 147 of 2020 in the Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22(1), 23, 27(1), 48, 50(1), 159 and 165 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Order 50 Rules 3, 4 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joshua Jaoko Oketch v Erastus Opiyo Otieno [2021] KEELC 4760 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment (application by Notice of Motion dated 3rd October 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4760/eng@2021-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.