Charagu v Kaguru [1986] KECA 51 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal excused a two-month appeal delay because the applicant's advocate, not the applicant, caused it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the delay of approximately two months in filing the Notice of Appeal should be excused
- 2.Whether the delay was attributable to the applicant or to his former advocate
- 3.Whether the discretion to extend time should be exercised in the applicant's favour
Key legal issues
#Exercise of discretion to extend time for filing a Notice of Appeal out of time
The court granted the extension despite a delay of about two months, because the delay was the fault of the applicant's former advocate, not the applicant, and justice required the complicated land dispute to be fully litigated.
The applicant was not informed of the High Court judgment dated October 28, 1983 and learned of it only on January 6, 1984. The Notice of Appeal, due November 11, 1983, was mistakenly filed in the High Court by his advocate and this error was not discovered until December 1985. The stamped High Court filings of January 11, 1984 corroborated the applicant's account. Given the delay was not the applicant's fault and the case was a complicated land matter, the discretion was exercised in his favour, with time extended to June 12, 1985 and default leading to dismissal of the motion.
Legal principles established
#- Where delay in filing a Notice of Appeal is caused by the advocate rather than the litigant, the court may excuse the delay and exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.
- The interest of justice in a complicated land case favours granting an extension so the appeal can be fully heard, notwithstanding delay.
Court orders
#- 1.Extension of time granted to the applicant to file his Notice of Appeal, to be filed within seven days, that is by June 12, 1985
- 2.In default of filing within the extended period, the Notice of Motion to stand dismissed
- 3.Costs to the respondent, fixed at Shs 250
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent/appellate jurisdiction to extend time for filing a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal
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 order I make is that an extension of time be granted to the applicant to file his Notice of Appeal. He is to file it within seven days in the registry, that is to say by June 12, 1985.
In default the Notice of Motion will stand dismissed. I order the costs to go to the respondent in any event. These are fixed at Shs 250.
Thereafter, I am satisfied, the delay was not the applicant’s fault but that of his former advocate.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the ruling is dated June 5, 1986, yet the extension orders filing by June 12, 1985, a date that had already passed.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charagu v Kaguru [1986] KECA 51 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1986). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1986/51/eng@1986-06-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.