Emily Jebor Rono & 1 other v Joel K Keino & 1 other
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to revive a succession appeal delayed nearly four years, confirming that blaming your lawyer is not enough.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Extension of time to file a notice of appeal where one already exists
The prayer was unnecessary because a valid notice of appeal was filed on time on 11th May 2020
Judgment was delivered on 30th April 2020 and a notice of appeal was timeously filed on 11th May 2020. Since the court has no power to extend time to file a notice of appeal where a valid notice is already on record, the first prayer was futile and required no exercise of discretion.
Whether the inordinate delay in filing the record of appeal was sufficiently explained
The delay of three years and eight months was inordinate and not sufficiently explained; blame on former advocates alone is insufficient where the clients failed to pursue their case
The record ought to have been filed by 10th July 2020, 60 days after the notice of appeal. The applicants attributed the delay to their former advocates, but the letter of 7th May 2020 enquired about delivery of judgment, not filing of the record, and showed no receipt by the advocates. The applicants were only roused when evicted in ELC Case No. 967 of 2021 on 30th November 2023.
Prejudice balance if extension is refused
The applicants would not suffer more prejudice than the respondents; remaining issues could be ventilated in the ELC matter
The court was not convinced the applicants would suffer more prejudice than the respondents if the orders were denied. Any further issues challenging ownership and possession of the suit property could be ventilated in their intended appeal in ELC Case No. 967 of 2021, so refusal did not leave them without a forum.
Legal principles established
#- The Court cannot extend time to file a notice of appeal where a valid notice of appeal is already on record
- A litigant cannot simply blame former advocates; the client bears a duty to diligently pursue the matter and must demonstrate vigilance
- The Rule 4 threshold requires reasons for the entire period of delay, that the delay is not inordinate, that the intended appeal is arguable, and consideration of prejudice
Court orders
#- 1.The prayer for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was rendered unnecessary (a valid notice of appeal was already on record)
- 2.The application is dismissed with no orders as to costs
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Succession cause - application for revocation of grant dated 29th September 2011 (estate of Kichwen Lagat Anwotot)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Emily Jebor Rono & 1 other v Joel K Keino & 1 other", Case Analysis (2024). Motion dated 15th March 2024 (Notice of Motion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1300/eng@2024-09-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.