Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Supreme CourtDismissedCivil Application 23 of 2015

Kenya Revenue Authority v Habimana Sued Hemed & another

Supreme Court of Kenya
26 January 2017
Jackton Boma OjwangJ.B. OjwangIsaac LenaolaI. Lenaola
4,829 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya LawDownload the judgment (PDF) Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

KRA lost its bid to appeal late because it gave vague excuses and failed to prove no harm to the other side.

What this practically means

#

The Kenya Revenue Authority wanted more time to appeal a court decision, but it filed its request over a month late. The Supreme Court said KRA did not honestly explain why it was late. It gave no clear timeline of events and did not show that the person who won the case would not be harmed by the delay. The Court also said that the Constitution’s call for substantive justice does not cancel the need to follow court deadlines. KRA’s application was dismissed, and it must pay the other side’s costs.

Executive summary

#
This was an application by the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) for extension of time to file a notice of appeal against a Court of Appeal judgment delivered on 31st July 2015. The prescribed 14-day period under Rule 31(1) of the Supreme Court Rules expired on 14th August 2015, but KRA filed the application on 11th September 2015, over a month late. KRA attributed the delay to difficulty obtaining the judgment (received on 7th August 2015) and the need to consult the 2nd respondent (the Attorney-General) before deciding whether to appeal. The 1st respondent opposed the application, arguing that KRA had acted in bad faith, had frustrated his cause for 17 years, and that the application was merely intended to forestall execution of the judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the application. It held that KRA failed to candidly explain the delay, providing no chronology of events or evidence of consultations with the Attorney-General. The Court reiterated the principles from Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC, including that extension of time is an equitable remedy not available as of right, the applicant bears the burden of satisfying the Court, and the delay must be explained to the Court's satisfaction. The Court found that KRA had not demonstrated that the 1st respondent would not suffer prejudice, noting the history of KRA's unresponsive conduct and the fact that execution had already begun. The Court also rejected KRA's reliance on Article 159 of the Constitution, holding that while the provision requires substantive justice, it does not override the importance of prescribed timelines. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether a basis has been satisfactorily laid to warrant this Court extending time to file a notice of appeal

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the notice of appeal.

Holding

The applicant failed to candidly explain the delay; the vague assertion of 'consulting' the 2nd respondent without providing a chronology or evidence of consultations did not satisfy the Court.

Reasoning

The applicant attributed the delay to the need to consult the 2nd respondent and difficulty obtaining the judgment. However, the applicant provided no chronology of events, and the 2nd respondent did not confirm any consultations. The Court found that the notice of appeal signifies intent and does not require the judgment text, and that the alleged need to consult was not a valid reason for delay.

p. 7
02

Whether the applicant demonstrated that the 1st respondent would not suffer prejudice if extension was granted.

Holding

The applicant failed to discharge its burden to show that the 1st respondent would not suffer prejudice; the history of the case showed the 1st respondent had already suffered considerable prejudice.

Reasoning

The Court held that the duty to convince the Court rests on the applicant, not the respondent. The applicant argued that the 1st respondent would not suffer irreparable harm, but the Court noted the 1st respondent had already begun executing the judgment and had suffered prejudice from the applicant's unresponsive conduct over 17 years. Granting extension would negate the principle of finality of litigation.

p. 8
03

Whether Article 159 of the Constitution requires the Court to grant extension of time despite the delay.

Holding

Article 159 does not override the importance of prescribed timelines, and declining extension where no proper case is made does not deny substantive justice.

Reasoning

The Court distinguished the Raila Odinga case, noting that while Article 159 requires dispensing substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, it does not detract from the importance of timelines. The applicant had already been heard by two competent courts, and failing to make a proper case for extension does not amount to denial of substantive justice.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • A party asking for more time must honestly explain the delay with specific facts, not vague reasons.
  • Courts have discretion to extend time, but they must use it carefully, fairly, and not arbitrarily.
  • The rules for extending time are not a checklist; each case is judged on its own facts and fairness.
  • The applicant must prove that the other side will not suffer harm if more time is granted.
  • Article 159 of the Constitution does not override the importance of following court deadlines.
  • Failing to make a proper case for more time does not deny a party substantive justice.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 5th June, 2014 is dismissed.
  2. 2.The Applicant shall bear the costs of the Respondents in this application.

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

Jackton Boma Ojwang
majority

Wrote the judgment

Isaac Lenaola
I. LenaolaSCJ
Currently serving
majority
On appeal from
Court of Appeal of Kenya
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 31 and 53 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012

Relief refused

#

Extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal

The applicant failed to satisfy the Court that it should exercise its discretion to grant extension of time, having not adequately explained the delay and having acted inequitably.

p. 9

Costs

The Applicant shall bear the costs of the Respondents in this application.

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 5th June, 2014 is dismissed.
p. 9 Final orders
the applicant has failed to convince this Court that this is a proper case for an exercise of discretion in the terms of Rule 53, and for the grant of extension of time to file a notice of appeal
p. 9 Discretion to extend time
a party who seeks extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the Court
p. 7 Burden of proof in extension applications
the discretionary power to extend time should be exercised with caution, care, and even-handedness
p. 7 Judicial discretion
these principles do not apply in a check-list fashion. The Courts will adopt a casuistic approach, which enables them to consider the circumstances of each case, and to take account of equitable factors
p. 7 Casuistic approach to extension applications
It is the applicant's responsibility to convince the Court that it should exercise its discretion and grant extension of time.
p. 8 Burden of proof

Key timeline

#
2015-07-31
Court of Appeal delivered judgment against KRA.
2015-08-14
14-day deadline to file notice of appeal expired.
2015-09-11
KRA filed application for extension of time, over a month late.
Judgment date
Supreme Court dismissed KRA's application with costs.

Practical implications

#
For lawyers

Be specific when explaining delays

When seeking extension of time, provide a detailed chronology of events and evidence supporting your reasons. Vague claims like 'consulting' a party without proof will not satisfy the court. Also, remember that the burden is on you to show no prejudice to the opponent—do not assume the court will infer it.

For businesses

Court deadlines are strict, even for government

If you win a case and the losing party delays appealing, you can oppose extension requests by showing the delay harms you. Here, the court noted the winning party had already started executing the judgment. Keep records of any prejudice you suffer from delays, as this strengthens your position.

For individuals

Don't rely on vague excuses in court

If you miss a court deadline, you must give a clear, honest reason for the delay. Simply saying you needed to 'consult' someone or had trouble getting documents is not enough. The court expects a step-by-step account. Also, know that the Constitution's call for justice does not excuse missing deadlines without good cause.

Frequently asked questions

#
Can I get more time to appeal a court decision in Kenya if I miss the deadline?+

Yes, but you must apply to the court and give a clear, honest reason for the delay. The court will consider your explanation, whether the other side will be harmed, and the overall fairness. Vague excuses like 'I needed to consult' without details are unlikely to succeed.

Does Article 159 of Kenya's Constitution allow courts to ignore deadlines?+

No. Article 159 requires courts to do substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, but it does not cancel the need to follow court deadlines. You must still show good reason for missing a deadline, or the court can refuse to extend time.

What happens if I win a case in Kenya and the loser tries to appeal late?+

You can oppose the late appeal by showing that the delay harms you. The court will require the loser to explain the delay honestly and prove you will not suffer prejudice. If they fail, the court can dismiss their application, as happened in this KRA case.

How do I prove prejudice if someone delays an appeal in Kenya?+

Show evidence that you have already started enforcing the judgment, incurred costs, or that the delay has affected your rights. The court will consider the history of the case, including any past delays by the losing party. Keep records of all communications and steps you have taken.

Later judgments citing this (12)

#

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, "Kenya Revenue Authority v Habimana Sued Hemed & another", Case Analysis (2017). Civil Application 23 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2017/26/eng@2017-01-26

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