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 AppealDismissedNot stated in the judgment

EVANS OBALA ONYANGO vs INTERNATIONAL CENTRE OF INSECT PHYSIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY [1999] KECA 152 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
1 November 1999
ALA.A. Lakha
319 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to forgive a two-year, eight-month delay in filing an appeal record because the applicant offered no explanation for it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered by Lakha, JA, on 1 November 1999, on an application under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules for extension of time to file the Record of Appeal. The notice of appeal had been filed within time against the judgment and decree of the High Court (Ringera, J.) delivered on 25 September 1996. Because the applicant's request for copies of proceedings was not copied to the respondent as required by rule 81, the appeal had to be filed within sixty days of the notice of appeal, expiring on 24 November 1996. The typed proceedings were only ready per the Registrar's letter of 13 April 1999, yet the application was not filed until 20 July 1999 - a delay of two years and eight months beyond the last day for filing the appeal. The court found the delay inordinate and wholly unexplained, noting that even on the applicant's own account a further month and a half elapsed after receipt of the papers. Applying the principle that unexplained delay admits no indulgence, Lakha, JA declined to exercise discretion in the applicant's favour and dismissed the application with costs. The intended appeal therefore could not proceed, and the decision below was not disturbed. The ruling binds lower courts and future litigants on the point that an extension of time will not be granted absent a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file the Record of Appeal out of time
  2. 2.Whether the delay of over two years and eight months in making the application was explained or excusable

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether extension of time should be granted despite inordinate and unexplained delay

Holding

The court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant because the delay of over two years and eight months was wholly unexplained

Reasoning

The judgment and decree were delivered on 25 September 1996, so the appeal had to be filed by 24 November 1996. The application was not made until 20 July 1999. Even assuming the applicant's advocate's account that the Registrar's notification was received on 8 June 1999, a further month and a half elapsed. None of these periods of delay was explained, and unexplained delay disentitles the applicant to the court's indulgence.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where there is no explanation for delay, the court cannot exercise its discretion to extend time in the applicant's favour

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for extension of time is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent

The bench

#

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

AL
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time jurisdiction)

Relief refused

#

Extension of time to file the Record of Appeal out of time

Inordinate and unexplained delay in making the application

p. 2

Costs

The application is dismissed with costs (costs to the respondent)

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 rule is that where there is no explanation there can be no indulgence.
p. 2Extension of time - unexplained delay
In the result, the application is dismissed with costs.
p. 2Final orders - dismissal with costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment does not state the case number, the names of the parties, or a neutral citation, making full identification of the matter impossible from the text alone

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "EVANS OBALA ONYANGO vs INTERNATIONAL CENTRE OF INSECT PHYSIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY [1999] KECA 152 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1999). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1999/152/eng@1999-11-01

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