John Kariuki Karanja & Samwel Ndegwa v Gladys Wanjiru Karuga [2001] KECA 250 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to forgive a seven-month delay in filing an appeal, ruling that waiting for a Certificate of Delay was no excuse.
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 applicants should be granted an extension of time to file the Record of Appeal
- 2.Whether the delay from receipt of certified proceedings on 12th April 2000 to the filing of the application on 13th November 2000 was adequately explained
Key legal issues
#Whether the need for a Certificate of Delay justified the applicants' failure to lodge the record of appeal
No - a Certificate of Delay is not a primary document under rule 85(1) and can be included in a supplementary record, so its absence did not explain the delay
The applicants received copies of the proceedings and judgment on 12th April 2000 but took no steps until filing this application on 13th November 2000. Their advocates asserted they could not lodge the record without a Certificate of Delay, issued 3rd August 2000. The court rejected this as legally unsound because rule 85(1) does not require the COD as a primary document; it could have been added by supplementary record. The resulting seven-month delay was therefore unexplained and inordinate.
Whether the respondent's lack of objection obliged the court to grant the extension
No - the court's discretion is not fettered by consent; where delay is inordinate and unexplained the court may disregard the respondent's concession
Although counsel for the respondent indicated she did not object to the application being granted, the single Judge held that an unexplained and inordinate delay justified refusing the extension notwithstanding that concession. The discretion under rule 4 is exercised judicially by the court, not by agreement of the parties, and consent cannot cure an unexplained inordinate delay.
Legal principles established
#- A Certificate of Delay is not a primary document required for lodging a record of appeal under rule 85(1) and may be included later in a supplementary record; its absence does not excuse delay in filing the record
- Where the delay is inordinate and unexplained, the court may disregard a respondent's lack of objection and refuse extension of time
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time to file the Record of Appeal is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- HCCC No. 529 of 1996
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file the Record of Appeal
The delay from 12th April 2000 to 13th November 2000 was inordinate and unexplained; the claim that a Certificate of Delay was needed before lodging the record was not a good reason
Costs
No order as to costs - the application was dismissed 'with no order as to 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.
a Certificate of Delay is not a primary document within the meaning of rule 85(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules and can always be included in a supplementary record of appeal
since the delay is quite inordinate I am entitled, in exercising my discretion, to disregard the indication by Miss Otieno, for the respondent, that she does not object to the application being granted
Accordingly, I decline to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicants and dismiss the application with no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The case title and party names in the header are partially illegible/garbled in the copy provided; the respondent's full name cannot be confirmed from the text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Kariuki Karanja & Samwel Ndegwa v Gladys Wanjiru Karuga [2001] KECA 250 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Civil Appeal (Nakuru Chambers) No. 346 of 2000. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/250/eng@2001-02-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.