Source: http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/172310/
Timestamp: 2019-09-21 20:54:52
Document Index: 318660190

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No 2', 'Application No 23', 'Application No 16', 'APPLICATION NO. 2', 'Application No. 3', 'Application No. 16']

Civil Application 2 of 2019 - Kenya Law
Sundowner Lodge Limited v Kenya Tourist Development Corporation [2019] eKLR
(Being an application for extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal out of time against the judgement and orders of the Court of Appeal (Ouko, Kiage, and Murgor JJA) dated and delivered in Nairobi on the 28thSeptember, 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2017)
Civil Appeal 120 of 2017
Procedural error by counsel for an applicant due to ignorance of the law is a valid ground for extension of time to file notice of appeal
Civil Application No 2 of 2019
Civil Practice and Procedure-notice of appeal-extension of time to file notice of appeal-application for-where counsel for the applicant was unaware of the amendment to the Supreme Court Rules allowing a party to file a notice of appeal even before obtaining certification/leave-claim that counsel’s ignorance of the law was not one of the grounds for extending time-whether a procedural error by counsel for an applicant occasioned by ignorance of the amendment of the Supreme Court Rules in 2012 was a valid ground for extension of time to file notice of appeal
Whether a procedural error by counsel for an applicant due to ignorance of the amendment of the Supreme Court Rules in 2012 was a valid ground for extension of time to file notice of appeal.
Ignorance of the amendment of the Supreme Court Rules in 2012 making it unnecessary to obtain certification before lodging the notice of appeal was an innocent mistake which the applicant had not sought to hide. Moreover, a delay of only four months was not inordinate.
1.Abok James Odera T/A AJ Odera & Associates v John Patrick Machira T/A Machira & Co Advocates [2013] eKLR – (Mentioned)
2.Attorney General v Oriental Construction Co LtdApplication 19 of 1990 [1991] UGSC – (Mentioned)
3.Charo, Hassan nyanje v Mwashetani, Khatib & 3 others Civil Application No 23 of 2014 [2014] eKLR – (Mentioned)
4.Horizon Coaches Ltd v Edward Rurangaranga & anotherCivil Application 18 of 2009 [2009] UGSC 7– (Mentioned)
5.Murai, Belinda & 9 others v Amos WainainaCivil Application No Nai 9 of 1978 [1978] eKLR– (Mentioned)
6.Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Sala v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 7 othersApplication No 16 of 2014 [2014] eKLR – (Explained)
8.Tropical Africa Bank Ltd v Grace Were Muhwana[2012] UGSC 8 – (Mentioned)
1.Onyebuchi Iroegbu & others v Richard Okwardu & othersNigeria291 of 1989 – (Mentioned)
1.Supreme Court Act (Act No 7 of 2011) section 3 – (Interpreted)
2.Supreme Court Rules (Act No 7 of 2011 Sub Leg) rules 3(2)(5); 31; 53– (Interpreted)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2019
SUNDOWNER LODGE LIMITED............................................APPLICANT
KENYA TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION....RESPONDENT
[1] The applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 24th January 2019 and supported by the affidavit of Samuel Waruguru Kimotho, a director of the applicant, is brought under Section 3 of the Supreme Court Act and Rules 3(2) & (5), 31 and 53 of the Supreme Court Rules as well as other enabling provisions of the law. It seeks an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against the judgement and orders of the Court of Appeal (Ouko, Kiage, and Murgor JJA) delivered at Nairobi on 28th Day of September 2018.
[2] The application is based on ground that counsel for the applicant was unaware of the amendment to the Supreme Court Rules allowing a party to file a Notice of Appeal even before obtaining certification/leave. Relying on the authorities of Belinda Murai & 9 Others vs Amos Wainaina [1979] eKLR; Tropical Africa Bank Ltd vs Grace Were Muhwana Civil Application No. 3 of 2012[2012] UGSC 8, (Ugandan SC); Horizon Coaches Ltd Vs Edward Rurangaranga & Another [Civil Application 18 of 2009 [2009] UGSC 7; Onyebuchi Iroegbu & others vs Richard Okwardu & Others Nigeria SC 291 of 1989; and The Attorney General vs Oriental Construction Co. Ltd [SC Application 7/90, the applicant argues that a procedural error of counsel should not be visited upon a litigant and urges this Court to grant it leave to file a Notice of Appeal out of time adding that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent. The applicant also relies on the case of Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Sala vs Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [2014] eKLR, Application No. 16 of 2014 and urges us to exercise our unfettered discretion and allow this application.
[3] Basing their arguments on the averments in the replying affidavit and written submissions, counsel for the respondent dismissed this application as lacking in merit. Citing the case of Abok James Odera T/A A.J Odera & Associates vs John Patrick Machira T/A Machira & Co. Advocates [2013] eKLR, counsel argued that a Notice of Appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite that every litigant should be aware of. They urged that it is every counsel’s duty to keep abreast with legal developments. In the circumstances, they argued that indolence or ignorance of the law, to make it worse, counsel’s ignorance of the law, is therefore not one of the grounds in the Nick Salat case for extending time. They argued that as was stated in the case of Charo vs Mwashetani & 3 Others [2014] eKLR, timelines are a vital ingredient for effective governance under the Constitution and urged us to dismiss this application with costs.
[4] Having considered the parties’ rival submissions, we find that counsel’s ignorance of the amendment of the Supreme Court Rules in 2012 making it unnecessary “to obtain … certification before lodging the notice of appeal”, was an innocent mistake which they have not sought to hide. Moreover, a delay of only four months is not inordinate. In the circumstances, we allow this application. The applicant shall file and serve its notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days of the date hereof failing which this application shall stand dismissed with costs. The costs of this application shall abide the result of the intended appeal.