Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEldama Ravine CMC ELC Case No. E006 of 2023 (intended appeal); Notice of Motion dated June 27, 2024· [2024] KEELC 6492 (KLR)

Tuitoek & another v Koech (Miscellaneous Civil Application E006 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6492 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya at Iten
25 September 2024
2,403 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court in Iten refused to let the defendants appeal late, holding that blaming a lawyer for not informing them is not a good enough excuse.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a notice of motion dated June 27, 2024 brought under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the defendants (applicants) sought leave to appeal out of time against a ruling of the Eldama Ravine Chief Magistrate's Court delivered on 7th May 2024, which allowed the plaintiff's application for his donee of a power of attorney to represent him in prosecuting his suit. They also sought deeming of the draft memorandum of appeal as filed and a stay of proceedings pending the intended appeal. The applicants attributed the delay in filing the appeal to their former advocate's failure to inform them of the ruling, asserting they learnt of it only on 20th June 2024. The plaintiff's appointed representative opposed the application as an afterthought and a delaying tactic, noting the application was filed 52 days after the ruling and that the court granted leave to represent the plaintiff under a power of attorney, not a guardian ad litem order. The court applied the principles in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC and Gitau v Kagwi, holding that although the three-week delay was not inordinate, blaming counsel without evidence of the clients following up their matter was not a good and sufficient reason. It further found the intended appeal had no prospects of success because the trial court did not appoint a guardian ad litem but recognised a representative under a power of attorney. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of about three weeks in seeking leave to appeal out of time was excusable

Holding

The delay was not inordinate, but the explanation offered was unsatisfactory and leave was refused

Reasoning

The court applied the Salat principles and Gitau v Kagwi factors. Blaming a former advocate for failing to communicate the ruling is not per se sufficient; the applicants gave no evidence they followed up their matter with their erstwhile advocates, so the explanation failed the good and sufficient cause test under Section 79G.

p. 5
02

Whether the intended appeal had chances of success

Holding

It did not; the trial court appointed a representative under a power of attorney, not a guardian ad litem, so the jurisdictional challenge was untenable

Reasoning

The impugned ruling permitted the plaintiff's attorney to represent him pursuant to a duly registered power of attorney. Although a guardian ad litem prayer existed as an alternative, it was not demonstrated that the court granted that order rather than one appointing a legal representative. The appeal therefore stood no chance of success.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Failure by counsel to inform a client of a court decision is not per se a good and sufficient reason for granting leave to appeal out of time; a client has a duty to pursue his advocates
  • Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated June 27, 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A, 79G and 95
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6
  • Mental Health Actnot specified

Cases cited (17)

  • Hamam Singh & others v. Mistri
    (1971) EA 122
  • Shah H. Bharmal & Brothers v Kumar
    (1961) EA 679
  • Edith Gichungu Koine v Stephen Njagi Thoithi
    (2014) eklr
  • UAP Insurance Company Ltd v Micheal John Beckett
    (2004) Eklr
  • Port Florence Community Health Care v Crown Health Care Limited
    (2022) eklr
  • Co-opertive Bank of Kenya Ltd v Banking Insurance of Finance Union (Kenya)
    (2015) eklr
  • Olivia Wamuhu Kinyanjui v Margaret Njeri Ndirangu
    (2015) eklr
  • Savings and Loans Limited v Susan Wanjiru Muritu
    Nairobi HCCC No. 397 of 2002 (U.R)
  • County Executive of Kisumu v County Government of Kisumu & 8 others
    (2017) eklr
  • Kenya Wildlife Services v James Mutembei
    (2019) eklr
  • Global Tours & Travels Limited
    Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000
  • Thomas v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
    (1991) LRC (Const.) 1001
  • Rosemary Wairimu Munene, Ex-parte Applicant v Ihururu Dairy Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd
    Judicial Review application no 6 of 2014
  • Edward Kamau & Another vs. Hannah Mukui Gichuki & Another
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs. IEBC & 7 others
    SC Appl 16/2014
  • Gitau vs. Kagwi & another
    (Civil Appeal No.314 of 2023)(2024) KEHC 6320 (KLR)(30 May 2024 (Ruling)
  • Mwangangi v. Mugi
    (CA No 1 of 2023)(2024) KEHC 6321 (KLR) (30th May 2024 (Ruling)
On appeal from
Eldama Ravine Chief Magistrate's Court (CMC ELC)
E006 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tuitoek & another v Koech (Miscellaneous Civil Application E006 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6492 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Eldama Ravine CMC ELC Case No. E006 of 2023 (intended appeal); Notice of Motion dated June 27, 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6492/eng@2024-09-25

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