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 AppealAllowedNot stated in the judgment

JOSEIS WANJIRU ALIAS JOSEIS WAIRIMU vs KABUI NDEGWA [2002] KECA 148 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
1 November 2002
EOE. Owuor
188 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 granted an extension of time to validate a late-filed Reference because the applicant moved quickly to fix the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short interlocutory ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nyeri delivered by Owuor, JA on 1st November 2002. The background was an intended appeal from a superior court judgment dated 13th February 1992. On 20th October 2000, Kwach, JA sitting as a single judge dismissed the applicant's application for leave to file a notice of appeal out of time. The applicant then filed a Reference before the full Court on 2nd November 2001, but that Reference was itself filed outside the prescribed 7-day period. When the Reference came up for hearing on 8th May 2002, counsel for the applicant obtained an adjournment in order to file the present application, which was lodged on 3rd June 2002, so as to validate the Reference. Owuor, JA was satisfied that the applicant had acted expeditiously in bringing the application and granted it. The court extended time so that the Reference filed on 2nd November 2001 was deemed to have been filed within the extended time. No costs order was recorded and no authorities were cited. The ruling is procedural and turns on the court's discretion to extend time where a party acts promptly; it does not disturb any decision on the merits, and the underlying intended appeal remained to be determined by the full Court by way of the now-validated Reference.

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 validate a Reference filed outside the prescribed 7-day period

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether to extend time to validate a Reference filed outside the prescribed 7-day period

Holding

Extension granted; the Reference filed on 2nd November 2001 was deemed filed within the extended time.

Reasoning

The single judge (Kwach, JA) had on 20th October 2000 dismissed leave to appeal out of time; the applicant filed a Reference on 2nd November 2001, outside the 7-day window. When the Reference came up on 8th May 2002, counsel obtained an adjournment and filed this application on 3rd June 2002. The judge was satisfied the applicant acted expeditiously and extended time accordingly.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who acts expeditiously in seeking to validate a Reference filed out of the prescribed 7-day period may be granted an extension of time deeming the Reference to have been filed within the extended time.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for extension of time is granted
  2. 2.Time is extended so that the Reference filed on 2nd November 2001 is deemed to have been filed within the extended time

The bench

#

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

EO
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
High Court (superior court)
Not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to extend time for filing a Reference (single judge and full Court procedure under the Court of Appeal procedural rules)

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 am satisfied that the applicant acted expeditiously in filing this application. The same is hereby granted.
p. 2expeditious conduct justifying extension of time
I hereby extend the time requested so that the Reference filed on 2nd day of November, 200`1 is deemed to have been filed within the extended time.
p. 2final orders - extension of time

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Typographical error in the judgment date of the Reference: '200`1' appears instead of '2001'.

minor

The judgment does not name the parties or the case number, identifying them only as 'the applicant'.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "JOSEIS WANJIRU ALIAS JOSEIS WAIRIMU vs KABUI NDEGWA [2002] KECA 148 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/148/eng@2002-11-01

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