Kenya Chemical & Allied Workers v Ernest & Young Liquidators For Cotes Brothers E.a Ltd
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused a union's plea for extra time to appeal because it blamed its lawyers and hid key facts, killing the appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the record of appeal was sufficiently explained
The delay was not explained; the applicant withheld material facts and was economical with the truth, so the discretion was not exercised in its favour
The court found unexplained gaps between 9th February 2016 and 28th October 2016, and between the corrected certificate of delay of 11th November 2016 and the filing of the application on 29th March 2017. The applicant also failed to disclose in its application the true chronology, including the earlier certificate of delay issued on 9th February 2016 (with an erroneous year) and its current advocates' involvement since October 2016, only addressing these in a supplementary affidavit after the respondent exposed them.
Whether blame can be placed wholly on previous advocates
No; a litigant bears responsibility to follow up its case even when represented
Relying on Habo Agencies Limited v Wilfred Odhiambo Musingo, the court held that parties cannot simply blame their advocates for transgressions in the conduct of litigation. The union, through its members and officials, was expected to show interest in the appeal. Even if the advocates were at fault, the applicant's own candour failures independently disentitled it to the extension.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time under Rule 4 is discretionary and is governed by the length of delay, reason for delay, chances of the appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent; the list is not closed
- An applicant for extension of time must give a plausible explanation for the delay; blaming advocates alone is insufficient, as parties must follow up their cases
- An applicant must be candid; withholding relevant information from the application disentitles it to the discretionary relief
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 28th March 2017 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- not stated in judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Chemical & Allied Workers v Ernest & Young Liquidators For Cotes Brothers E.a Ltd", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Application (Nai.) not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/37/eng@2018-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.