The Attorney General & 1 other v The Law Society of Kenya & 1 other
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave the Attorney General 30 more days to appeal a ruling over an East African Court of Justice judge nomination, finding the short delay was justified.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Discretion to extend time under Rule 4
The court has wide and unfettered discretion to extend time, to be exercised judiciously on the established guidelines: length of delay, reason for delay, arguability and prejudice.
The court applied the well-settled guidelines from Mwangi v Kenya Airways and Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi. It found a delay of about 11 days not inordinate; the explanation - that instructions to appeal were only received on 25th February 2025 owing to the African Heads of State meeting in Addis Ababa touching on Kenya's AU Commission candidature - was uncontroverted and plausible. No prejudice was demonstrated, whereas refusal would shut the applicants out of the seat of justice.
Reason for the delay
The applicants' explanation for the delay - receipt of instructions on 25th February 2025 following the Africa Heads of State meeting - was reasonable and uncontroverted.
The applicants deponed that instructions could only be obtained after the African Union Heads of State meeting in Addis Ababa, at which Kenya's candidature for the Chairmanship of the African Union Commission required the personal attention of the President and Cabinet Secretary. No party controverted this account, so the court accepted it as a plausible explanation sufficient to satisfy the second guideline.
Prejudice to the respondents
No prejudice was demonstrated; the absence of Kenya's nominee had not stopped the East African Court of Justice from operating.
The court noted that no nomination and appointment to the position of Judge of the East African Court of Justice had been done, and the Court remained operational and quorate without Kenya's nominee. Conversely, refusal of the application would completely shut the applicants out of the seat of justice, tipping the balance in favour of extension.
Legal principles established
#- In deciding an application to extend time under Rule 4, the court considers four factors: the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicants' motion dated 27th February 2025 is allowed as prayed (extension of time to file and admit the Notice of Appeal out of time, deemed duly lodged and filed on time)
- 2.The applicants shall file the intended appeal within 30 days from the date of the ruling, failing which the orders shall stand vacated
- 3.The costs of the motion shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal
- On appeal from
- High Court (implied; judgment quashing the Cabinet Secretary's letter, delivered 31st January 2025)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 27(1), 40, 50(1) and 159(2)(a),(b),(d),(e) of the Constitution; Sections 3(2), 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Rules 4 and 77(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules (single judge jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "The Attorney General & 1 other v The Law Society of Kenya & 1 other", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1991/eng@2025-11-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.