George Owuor Olaka v Paul K. Muruga
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to extend time to file an appeal record because the applicant could not explain a four-month delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether unexplained delay after the expiry of the certified-delay period warrants extension of time
The application was dismissed because the applicant did not account for the delay between 12th April 2019 and 15th August 2019; extension of time is a discretionary remedy requiring an explanation for the whole period of delay.
The Notice of Appeal was filed within time on 9th June 2017, and a Certificate of Delay excluded the period from 9th June 2017 to 12th April 2019 in the computation of time. However, once the proceedings were ready on 12th April 2019, no reason was advanced for the further delay until 15th August 2019. In the absence of any explanation for that unaccounted period, the judge declined to exercise the discretion to extend time.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of delay excludes only the period it covers; an applicant for extension of time must still explain any delay after the date the proceedings were certified ready, failing which the application will be dismissed.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 15th August, 2019 seeking extension of time is dismissed with costs
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the Court of Appeal to extend time for filing the Record and Memorandum of Appeal (rule-based extension-of-time jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George Owuor Olaka v Paul K. Muruga", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/264/eng@2019-10-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.