Ernest Cherimo Bararagu v The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture Research, Livestock, Crop Development and Fisheries & 1 other

The Court has wide but judicious discretion under Rule 4. Although the Notice of Appeal was filed within time, the applicant's explanation for the roughly seven-month delay - an alleged registry undertaking to notify them when proceedings were ready - was a general averment with no evidential support; the registry official was unnamed, no proof of application or follow-up for proceedings existed, and no formal application for typed proceedings under Rule 84 was shown. No draft Memorandum of Appeal was annexed to gauge the appeal's chances, and no prejudice from refusal was shown.

The Court found nothing on the record to support the alleged assurance/undertaking; the registry official who allegedly gave it was not named, and there was no evidence that the applicant applied for the proceedings or followed up. The claim that a Certificate of Delay was requested and declined was likewise unsupported. Further, the applicant did not formally apply for typed proceedings with a copy to the respondent's counsel as Rule 84 requires.

On the third Rule 4 factor, the absence of a draft Memorandum of Appeal meant the Court could not interrogate whether the intended appeal was arguable, so nothing more was said on that issue. On prejudice, no evidence was tendered to show the applicant would suffer any prejudice if the motion was not allowed. Both factors weighed against the exercise of discretion in the applicant's favour.