Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedNot stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 4th December 2023)

Arum v Sarova Hotels Limited (Civil Application E169 of 2021) [2024] KECA 1326 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
27 September 2024
722 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal, holding that illness doesn't excuse delay when phone, email or video calls could keep a case moving.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nakuru on a Notice of Motion dated 4th December 2023 brought under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 by Michael Arum seeking extension of time to file and serve an intended appeal against a judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court delivered on 31st July 2023. The applicant lodged a notice of appeal on 14th August 2023 and collected certified proceedings on 3rd October 2023, within the 60-day period expiring 13th October 2023, but did not lodge the appeal. He attributed the delay to illness - athletes foot arising as a complication of diabetes - including hospitalisation from 5th to 12th October 2023, and a claimed 21-day rest period, after which he travelled to Nairobi on 14th November 2023 to instruct his advocates. The respondent opposed, noting it had settled the decretal sum and that no sufficient reason for delay was given. The court applied the established Rule 4 factors - length of delay, reason for delay and prejudice to the respondent - citing Njeri Njoroge v Joseph Maina Gichuhi. It found the explanation wanting: modern means of communication meant the applicant's illness did not prevent consultation with his Nairobi-based advocates, the discharge notes did not recommend 21 days' rest, and he did not contact his advocates promptly after the rest period allegedly expired on 2nd November 2023. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent. The decision under appeal was not disturbed, as the intended appeal was never filed.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicant has given sufficient reason for the delay in filing and serving the intended appeal so as to warrant an extension of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant's illness and hospitalisation constituted sufficient reason for the delay in lodging the appeal within 60 days

Holding

No - the explanation was wanting because the applicant and his advocates could have communicated remotely and the discharge notes did not support the claimed 21-day rest, nor did he act promptly after it expired

Reasoning

The court accepted the 60-day period expired on 13th October 2023 and that the applicant was hospitalised from 5th to 12th October 2023. But it held that illness did not prevent phone, email or video-conference consultation with advocates. The discharge notes did not recommend 21 days' rest, and even if they had, the applicant gave no reason for not contacting advocates from 2nd November 2023 rather than travelling on 14th November 2023.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Rule 4 confers an unfettered discretion to extend time, exercised by reference to relevant factors including the length of and reason for delay and prejudice to the respondent
  • A litigant's preferred means of communication with his advocate cannot excuse delay; illness of a litigant does not relieve advocates of the duty to progress the appeal, given modern means of remote communication

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for extension of time to file and serve the intended appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the respondent

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

Mohamed Abdulahi Warsame
M. WarsameJA
Currently serving
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022

Relief refused

#

Leave to extend time to file and serve the intended appeal against the judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court dated 31st July 2023

The explanation for the delay was wanting; illness did not prevent communication with advocates by phone, email or video conferencing, and the discharge notes did not recommend 21 days' rest

p. 2

Costs

The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent

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.

The factors for consideration are endless, so long as they are relevant. They include the period of delay; the reason for delay and the degree of prejudice the respondent stands to sufier
p. 2Factors under Rule 4 extension of time
The strict timelines and processes of this court aim to deliver timely, eficient, just and fair manner and cannot be held hostage by the preferred means of communication of a litigant with his Advocate.
p. 2Timelines cannot yield to a litigant's preferred mode of communication
In the circumstance I find the reason for the delay has not been explained and dismiss the application with costs to the respondent.
p. 2Disposition - application dismissed

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The names of the parties, the case number of the application and of the decision under appeal are not stated in the judgment; the respondent is referred to only as 'the respondent'

minor

The judgment is dated and delivered at Nakuru but bears only one judge; this is a single-judge ruling, not a panel judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Arum v Sarova Hotels Limited (Civil Application E169 of 2021) [2024] KECA 1326 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 4th December 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1326/eng@2024-09-27

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