Beatrice Lukalo & 1 other v Tom Lukalo
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to excuse a six-month delay in seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, confirming every day of delay must be explained.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was excusable
The delay of approximately six months, including two months between drafting and filing the application, was inordinate and wholly unexplained, so extension of time was refused.
Even accepting the applicants only learned of the judgment on 1st September 2014, no explanation covered the period from 25th September 2014, when the application was dated, to 24th November 2014, when it was filed. The court reiterated that applicants must explain every aspect of delay, citing its prior decisions. The total six-month unexplained delay defeated the application.
The standard for extension of time applications
Good practice requires such applications to be brought within a reasonable time even absent a statutory time limit, and the applicant must account for every period of delay.
The court observed there is no fixed time limit for such applications but imposed a reasonable-time requirement as good practice. It invoked its settled jurisprudence, citing Kenya Airports Authority v. Timothy Nduvi Mutungi and Alshabahi Ali Mohammed v. Maritime Freight Co. Ltd, that every aspect of delay must be explained.
Legal principles established
#- An application for extension of time must be brought within a reasonable time, and the applicant must explain every aspect of the delay.
- In any application for extension of time, the applicant has to explain every aspect of delay.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time is dismissed with costs
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal
- Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2011
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Rules 4, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 of the Court of Appeal Rules; Articles 95(2)(a), (d) & (e) and 163(3)(b) & (4)(b) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Beatrice Lukalo & 1 other v Tom Lukalo", Case Analysis (2015). Civil Application No. 72 of 2014 (UR No. 51/2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2015/668/eng@2015-03-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.