Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. 77 of 1995 (application under rule 4)· [1995] KECA 103 (KLR)

EVANS AURA BOAZ vs THE CHAIRMAN,COURT BROKERS LICENSING BOARD [1995] KECA 103 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
10 November 1995
JGJ.M. Gachuhi
600 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

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal because the applicant could not show an arguable appeal with realistic chances of success.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal (Gachuhi, JA) delivered at Nairobi on 10 November 1995 on an application under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules for extension of time to file a notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time. The applicant, a former Court Broker, sought judicial review in the High Court (Aguk, J.) of a decision of the Court Brokers Licensing Board of 1 August 1994 revoking his licence for non-compliance with rule 28(1) of the Court Brokers Rules, following complaints by decree holders in two Mombasa suits that he failed to account for money received on execution of decrees. His earlier appeal, Civil Appeal No. 77 of 1995, was struck out on 26 July 1995 for lacking a certified copy of the order appealed against. He asserted he had been denied a fair hearing and that his intended appeal had chances of success. The respondent countered that the licence had expired, renewal had been refused for the proven rule 28(1) breach, and there was no provision for appeal, so no arguable appeal existed. Holding that the applicant had in fact been heard by the Board and his explanation rejected, and that the breach involved a serious violation of trust, the judge found no arguable appeal, declined to exercise his discretion, and dismissed the application with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant had an arguable appeal justifying extension of time

Holding

No arguable appeal: the applicant was heard by the Board and found guilty of failing to comply with rule 28(1) of the Court Brokers Rules, and there was no provision for appeal against that finding

Reasoning

The court found evidence that the applicant appeared before the Board and gave an explanation which was considered and rejected. The violation concerned trust over money received on execution of decrees. Complaints were lodged only after several demands. Given these facts and the absence of an appeal mechanism against the Board's finding, the applicant could not show an arguable appeal, so the discretion to extend time was declined.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time under rule 4 requires the applicant to demonstrate an arguable appeal with likelihood of success

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for extension of time was dismissed with costs
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya
Judicial review motion under Order LIII rule 2 ( Civil Appeal No. 77 of 1995)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "EVANS AURA BOAZ vs THE CHAIRMAN,COURT BROKERS LICENSING BOARD [1995] KECA 103 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1995). Civil Appeal No. 77 of 1995 (application under rule 4). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1995/103/eng@1995-11-10

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