Kiu Ranching and Farming Co-operative Society Ltd v Kisee Maweu & 9 others [2001] KECA 134 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to excuse a late appeal filing, holding lawyers cannot blame their clerks for missed deadlines.
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 application to regularize the non-filing of the requisite letter was made in a bona fide manner.
- 2.Whether the court should exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant notwithstanding the late lodgment of the letter and the prolonged failure to regularize the default.
Key legal issues
#Whether the application to regularize the non-filing of the letter was made bona fide.
It was not. The advocates on record could not excuse the default by attributing it to a clerk's illness; if the letter was not lodged on 19th October, 2000, it was incumbent upon them to inquire into the non-filing, which they failed to do for more than seven months.
The letter ought to have been lodged at the Registry on 19th October, 2000 but was only lodged on 9th November, 2000. The explanation offered rested on the illness of a clerk, but the court held that advocates cannot rely on a clerk's default: they were obliged to inquire into whether the letter had been filed timeously. Having made no inquiry for more than seven months, and having taken no step to regularize the default until the application of 12th June, 2001, the applicant failed to demonstrate the bona fides required to invoke the court's discretion.
Whether the court should exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.
It should not. There was nothing before the court to enable it to exercise its discretion in the applicant's favour, and the application was dismissed with costs.
The discretion to excuse a default and regularize a late filing is not automatic; the applicant had to demonstrate bona fides and offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Here the letter was lodged late on 9th November, 2000, and no step was taken to regularize the non-filing until 12th June, 2001, more than seven months later. The unexplained inaction of the advocates, and the absence of bona fides, meant there was nothing upon which the discretion could properly be exercised in the applicant's favour.
Legal principles established
#- Advocates on record bear a personal duty to ensure that documents intended for lodgment in an appeal are filed timeously; the illness or default of a clerk does not excuse the advocates' own failure to inquire into a non-filing.
- A party seeking the court's discretion to regularize a late filing must act bona fide and without delay; unexplained inaction over several months after a known non-filing disentitles the applicant to the exercise of that discretion.
Court orders
#- 1.The application was dismissed with costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Relief refused
#The applicant's application to regularize the non-filing of the requisite letter (the application having been lodged on 12th June, 2001).
The application was not made bona fide; the advocates failed to inquire into the non-filing for more than seven months and took no step to regularize the default until the application itself was lodged, leaving nothing to justify the exercise of the court's discretion.
Costs
The application was dismissed with costs.
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.
I dismiss this application with costs.
One would expect a clerk to fall ill and not file the requisite letter at the Registry but I do not see how the advocates would not inquire into the timeous filing or non-filing thereof for more than seven months.
I am not satisfied that the application before me has been made in a bona fide manner.
As it is now, the letter was not lodged until 9th November, 2000. Further no action was taken to regularize the nonfiling until 12th June, 2001 when this application was lodged.
Issues in the judgment
#The text provided is truncated: it opens mid-ruling without the caption, case number, parties or background, so the case title, case number, neutral citation, parties and the decision appealed from cannot be recorded from this source.
The 'requisite letter' whose non-filing precipitated the application is not identified in the excerpt, and the precise relief sought is not stated; the nature of the application is inferable only from the reference to regularizing the non-filing.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiu Ranching and Farming Co-operative Society Ltd v Kisee Maweu & 9 others [2001] KECA 134 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/134/eng@2001-11-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.