Africa Blooms Limited v Gatari (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Samuel Karuga Gatari - Deceased) (Civil Application E021 of 2022) [2023] KECA 918 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to revive Africa Blooms' dismissed case, ruling that clients—not their lawyers—must actively follow up on their litigation.
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 applicant has demonstrated sufficient reason to warrant extension of time under Rule 56(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules within which to apply for reinstatement of an application dismissed for want of prosecution on February 3, 2021
- 2.Whether the delay of over one year in bringing the application was reasonable and excusable
- 3.Whether the blame attributed to former advocates constitutes a plausible explanation for the delay
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of over one year in seeking extension of time was reasonable
The delay of more than one year was inordinate and the reasons given were neither reasonable nor plausible.
The application dismissed for non-attendance was dismissed on February 3, 2021, yet the motion for extension of time was filed on May 6, 2022. The applicant's claim that it only became aware of the dismissal in April 2022 was deemed implausible and showed lack of seriousness. The applicant gave no account of when it last communicated with its former advocates.
Whether mistake or negligence of former advocates excuses the litigant
Although mistake of counsel should not ordinarily be visited on an innocent litigant, the client remains responsible for following up its case; the excuse was rejected here.
The court acknowledged the trite principle that mistakes of counsel should not be visited on innocent litigants, but held that the applicant 'sat pretty easy' for over a year without checking the status of its case. Citing Waki JA and Kimaru J, the court held a litigant cannot blame counsel where it was equally indolent, and its remedy lies in an action for professional negligence.
Whether the chances of the appeal succeeding could be assessed
The Single Judge could not determine the merits of the intended appeal, and under Rule 56(4) the applicant still had to show sufficient cause for non-attendance, which was not demonstrated.
The court noted it was not in a position, sitting as a Single Judge, to determine whether the appeal would succeed. It distinguished extension of time to file an appeal from extension under Rule 56(4) for reinstatement of a dismissed application, the latter requiring demonstration of sufficient cause preventing attendance.
Legal principles established
#- A case belongs to the client and not their advocates; litigants have a duty to follow up the status of their cases, and blaming former advocates without explaining the last communication with them is not a plausible reason for delay.
- Where an application for reinstatement of a dismissed application is sought under Rule 56(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the applicant must demonstrate sufficient cause that prevented attendance.
- While the court's discretion under Rule 4 is wide and unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously, guided by relevant factors including period and reason for delay, chances of success, and prejudice to the respondent.
Court orders
#- 1.Prayer 5 of the applicant's motion dated May 6, 2022 (extension of time under Rule 56(4) to apply for reinstatement of the dismissed application) is declined
- 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
- Environment and Land Court, Nakuru
- Nakuru ELC Case No 9 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A & 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Rules 4, 5(2)(b), 42, 43, 47, 56(3), 56(4) & 57(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules; Articles 50(1) & 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Extension of time under Rule 56(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules within which to apply for reinstatement of the application dismissed on February 3, 2021
The delay of over one year was inordinate and the explanation, that the applicant only learnt of the dismissal in April 2022 and blamed former advocates, was not plausible; the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient cause under Rule 56(4)
Costs
No order as to costs - 'I make 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.
It must always be remembered that a case belongs to a client and not their advocates and clients have a corresponding duty to keep checking on the status of their case with their advocates.
A period of more than 1 year is certainly inordinate/ unreasonable given the circumstances of this case.
under the Rule, an applicant needs to demonstrate suficient cause/ reason that prevented their attendance and in the instant case and as I have already found none has been demonstrated.
The upshot of the foregoing is that there is no merit in prayer 5 of the applicant’s motion dated May 6, 2022, and the same is hereby declined. I make no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to Rule 56(4) of the 'Court of Appeal Rules 2010' in places and 'Court of Appeal Rules, 2020' in others, an internal inconsistency in rule references.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Chere v Lake Basin Development Authority (Judicial Review E045 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2913 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2913 (KLR)28 Oct 2025applied
- Solian Investment Limited v KSC International Limited In Receivership (Formerly known as Kundan Singh Construction) & 6 others (Civil Application E034 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1533 (KLR)[2025] KECA 1533 (KLR)3 Oct 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Africa Blooms Limited v Gatari (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Samuel Karuga Gatari - Deceased) (Civil Application E021 of 2022) [2023] KECA 918 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Civil Application (motion dated May 6, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/918/eng@2023-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.