Dodhia v Dodhia (Civil Application E525 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1325 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused a wife's late divorce appeal because she blamed her former lawyer without evidence, and parties must follow up their own cases.
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 satisfied the principles for grant of leave to file an appeal out of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, including whether the delay of about two months was sufficiently explained
- 2.Whether the intended appeal is arguable
- 3.Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the extension of time were granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the notice of appeal was sufficiently explained
No - blaming undisclosed former advocates without evidence of any communication or enquiry was insufficient
The applicant blamed her former advocates for failing to notify her of the judgment but did not disclose them or annex any correspondence showing enquiries about the matter. The court found nothing explaining what she did between delivery of the ruling on 14th August 2024 and filing the application on 7th October 2024. Following Habo Agencies, parties must follow up their own cases even when represented.
Whether the intended appeal was arguable
The court entertained doubts about the arguability of the intended appeal
On perusal of the impugned ruling and the proposed grounds of appeal, and given the prior Deed of Settlement under which the applicant received Kshs. 6 million and agreed to rest maintenance, the divorce of 17th June 2018 and the respondent's remarriage, the court doubted the appeal had arguable chances of success.
Whether prejudice to the respondent outweighed the applicant's constitutional right of appeal
Yes - continued litigation would aggravate the respondent's ill health where the appeal's chances were doubtful
Although a party has a constitutional right of appeal, that right must be exercised within the stipulated period. The parties had long been divorced, the respondent suffered from heart problems and diabetes, and with doubtful prospects of success continued litigation would be stressful and prejudicial to him.
Legal principles established
#- A litigant cannot simply blame former advocates for failure to follow up the case; parties must show interest in and follow up their own cases.
- In an extension-of-time application the court considers the length of and reasons for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, prejudice to the respondent, and whether the matter raises issues of public importance.
- Extension of time is an equitable remedy, not a right, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis for it.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time to file an appeal out of time is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Milimani), Family/Divorce Division
- Milimani High Court Divorce Cause No. 32 of 2011
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for extension of time)
Relief refused
#Leave to file an appeal out of time against the ruling of Riechi, J. delivered on 14th August 2024
The delay was not sufficiently explained, the intended appeal appeared doubtful on arguability, and continued litigation would prejudice the respondent given the long-standing divorce and his poor health
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs of the application
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 Court will consider factors such as the period of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, the degree of prejudice that is likely to be occasioned to the respondent if the application is granted, and whether the matter raises issues of public importance, among others.
It is not enough for a party in litigation to simply blame the advocates on record for all manner of transgressions in the conduct of the litigation. Courts have always emphasized that parties have a responsibility to show interest in and to follow up their cases, even when they are represented by counsel.
All in all, I find this application unmeritorious and dismiss it. However, each party shall bear its own costs of the application.
Issues in the judgment
#The applicant's intended appeal against the Riechi, J. ruling is described in the affidavit as being against 'the judgment' delivered 14th August 2024, but the text elsewhere refers to the same decision as a 'ruling'; the nature of the decision below is not entirely consistent on the face of the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dodhia v Dodhia (Civil Application E525 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1325 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1325/eng@2025-07-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.