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 AppealAllowedMotion dated 5th June 2023· [2024] KECA 380 (KLR)

Skm & 6 others v The Attorney General & 1 other

Court of Appeal
28 March 2024
PKP. O. Kiage
353 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 gave late appellants more time to file their appeal record because they acted promptly and the court registry never notified them.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal (Kiage, JA) delivered at Nairobi on 28th March 2024, determining a motion dated 5th June 2023 in which the applicants sought an extension of time to file and serve the record of appeal against a judgment of the High Court (Ong'udi, J.) delivered on 22nd December 2022. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn on 5th June 2023 by Nyokabi Njogu, Legal Counsel and Head of Strategic Litigation of the 7th applicant, on behalf of all applicants. The applicants explained that they filed a notice of appeal on 23rd December 2022 and applied for typed proceedings, which were ready on 28th February 2023, but they were never notified of their readiness and only learned of it on 19th May 2023 upon perusing the court file. They then collected the proceedings and obtained a certificate of delay on 30th May 2023, by which time they were time-barred. There was no opposition to the application. The court found the applicants had acted with alacrity, were not indolent, and that their explanation for the delay was plausible. The application was allowed as prayed, with the applicants directed to file and serve the record of appeal within ten days of the ruling, and costs made payable in the intended appeal. No authorities or statutes were cited in the ruling.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay in filing the record of appeal should be excused

Holding

The application for extension of time was allowed because the applicants filed their notice of appeal timeously, applied for proceedings promptly, and were not notified when the proceedings were ready.

Reasoning

The court found that the applicants acted diligently by filing a notice of appeal on 23rd December 2022 and applying for typed proceedings. The proceedings were ready on 28th February 2023 but the applicants were not notified, only discovering readiness on 19th May 2023 upon perusing the court file. They then collected the proceedings and obtained a certificate of delay without delay. The court found no opposition to the application and considered the explanation plausible, concluding the applicants were not indolent.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who files a notice of appeal timeously and applies for proceedings with alacrity, and whose delay is attributable to not being notified of the readiness of proceedings, is not an indolent party and may merit an extension of time.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time granted to the applicants to file and serve the record of appeal
  2. 2.The applicants shall file and serve the record of appeal within ten (10) days of the Ruling
  3. 3.Costs shall be in the intended appeal
On appeal from
High Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretionary power of the Court of Appeal to enlarge time for filing and serving a record of appeal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Skm & 6 others v The Attorney General & 1 other", Case Analysis (2024). Motion dated 5th June 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/380/eng@2024-03-28

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