Dick Ouma Ochieng, David Auma, Patrick Ndirangu, Said Ali Abu, Samuel Ngatia, James Njoroge, Mary Nduku Ki, Maina Mutaji, John Mwaura Wainaina, Mudia Muchemi & Nama Ogembo Ogweno v Smuthithi Investments Limited [2014] KECA 337 (KLR)

INTHE COURT  OF APPEAL

AT NAIROBI

(CORAM: NAMBUYE , J.A (IN CHAMBERS)

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 176OF 2014(UR 137/2014)

BETWEEN

DICK  OUMA OCHIENG……….................................1STAPPLICANT

DAVIDAUMA.......................................................................2ND  APPLICANT

PATRICKNDIRANGU...............................................3RD  APPLICANT

SAIDALI ABU..............................................................4TH  APPLICANT

SAMUELNGATIA........................................................5TH  APPLICANT

JAMES NJOROGE.......................................................6TH  APPLICANT

MARY  NDUKU KIOKO.............................................7TH  APPLICANT

MAINAMUTAJI...........................................................8TH  APPLICANT

JOHN MWAURAWAINAINA.....................................9THAPPLICANT

MUDIAMUCHEMI....................................................10TH  APPLICANT

NAMA OGEMBOOGWENO....................................11TH  APPLICANT

AND

SMUTHITHI INVESTMENTS LIMITED……………………. RESPONDENT

(Application for Extension  of Time for Filing  the  Notice of  Appeal  from  the  Judgment  and  Decree  of  the  High Court  of Kenya  at Nairobi  (Mutungi, J)  Dated  13th  May,

2014

in

H.C.C.C. (ELC) No.457  of 2013)

*********************

RULING OF NAMBUYE, JA

The  Eleven   Applicants  Dick   Ouma   Ochieng, David  Auma   , Patrick Ndirangu, Said  Ali Abu, Samuel Ngatia, James Njoroge, Mary  Nduku  Kioko,  Maina  Mutahi,  John   Mwaura  Wainaina, Mudia Muchemi and  Naman Ogembo Ogwenowere  among a total of  twenty  three  (23)   defendants  then    successfully  sued   by   the respondent Muthithi Investment Limitedin the  High Court of Kenya, vide  ELC No. 498/2004. The litigation appears to have  centred around a claim  of  ownership  of  Land   reference   No.2391/7.  The   litigation culminated in the  judgment of J.M. Mutungi,Jdated and delivered on the  13th day of May, 2014  in favour of the  respondent.

The  applicants were  aggrieved by  that decision and  desired to appeal to this  court. As was  required of them, they needed to  have lodged their  notice of appeal within  the  time line  stipulated in  rule 75(2) of this  Court’s Rules  of 14  days  from the  date  of delivery of the grieving decision. Instead, their notice of Appeal  dated the  26th of June, 2014  was  lodged out of time without leave  on  the  27th  day  of June, 2014  hence  this  application.

The  application is dated the  9th  day  of July,  2014  and  lodged on the   15th    day   of  2014.  The   substantive  relief  sought  is  that,  the Honourable Court be pleased to issue  an order extending the  time for the  filing and  serving of the  Notice of Appeal; the  Notice of Appeal lodged herein be deemed duly  filed and served. The application is supported by  the  grounds in the  body  of the  application; content of a supporting affidavit of Benard Maina Mutahaand oral  submissions to Court.

In his oral  submissions before me,  Mr. Michael Nderitulearned counsel for the  applicant informed me  that they had  served the respondent with both  the  notice of appeal and  the  application on  the 24th July, 2014  but since  then  the  respondent had not filed any affidavit in  reply to their application. Neither had  they attended chambers to oppose the  application under review notwithstanding their receipt of the  hearing notice without any  protest. The  Court  being satisfied that the  respondents had  indeed received notice of both  the  lodging and service on them of the  application under review by  the  applicants and service of the  hearing notice for the  hearing date   on  them by  this courts Registry, allowed the  applicant to proceed exparte.

On   merits,  Mr.  Nderituurged  me   to   allow   the   application because, the  delay   was  not intentional. It arose  from an  execusable mistake in that, the  applicants are  representatives of a large  group of residents of the  suit property on  which stands developed structures. They  had  appointed the  eighth (8th) applicant as their contact person. The  eighth (8th) applicant had  unfortunately moved away  to Muranga County  hence   inability  to  contact  him   for  instructions on  the   way forward soon  after the  delivery of the  judgment. Mr. Nderituargued further that the  litigation is for the  benefit of a large  group and  getting them  together to  give   instructions  to  proceed  on  with  the   appeal process was  not easy.  That  the  respondent has  already set  in  motion the  eviction  process in  the  High  Court. They  contend they have  an arguable appeal with a  probability of success.  They  intend to argue that the  learned trial Judge  failed to properly appreciate the  intended appellants competing interests as against those  of the  respondent considering that both  parties had  title documents in their possessions. Lastly  no  prejudice will   be  suffered by  the   respondent if the   order sought is granted to the  applicant.

My jurisdiction to grant the  relief sought has been  invoked under rule  4 of this  Court’s Rules. It reads:-

“The Court may,on  such  terms as  it thinks just, by order extend the time limited by these Rules, or  by  any  decision of  the Court or  of  a  Superior Court,  for   the  doing   of   any   act   authorized  or required by these Rules, whether before or after the doing   of  the act, and  a  reference, in  these Rules  to any such time shall  be construed as a reference to that time as extended.”

In the  case  of Leo Sila Mutiso versus Rose Hellen WangariMwangi Civil Application No. Nai 255 of 1997 (UR), the  following observations were  made:-

“Itis now  well  settled that the decision whether or  not to extend the time for  appealing is essentially discretionary. It  is  also   well   settled that  in   general  the  matters  which   this  Court takes into account in  deciding whether to grant an  extension of  time are:  first, the length of  the

delay, secondly, the reasonsfor  the delay; thirdly (possibly) the chances of  the appeal succeeding if  the application is granted; and  fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if  the application is granted.”

In Githiaka versus Nduriri[2004]2KLR 67 Ringera Ag JA(as he then  was) had this  to add:-

“In the exerciseof  its discretion, the Courts’ primary concern should be to do justice to the parties. Save  that in  doing  so, the Court should bear in  mind  the length of  the delay in  lodging the notice and  record where applicable, the delay in  lodging the application for  extension of  time as  well   as  the explanation thereof; whether or not, the intended appeal is arguable, the public importance if any  of the matter and  generally the requirement  of   the  interest  of   justice  in   the case”

My  understanding  of  the   guiding  principles  enunciated  in  the above two  decisions is that those  prerequisites have  to be satisfied irrespective  of  whether  the   request  for  the   Courts   indulgence  is contested or not.

Applying the  above principles to the  uncontested contention of the  applicant, I find nothing to  doubt the  applicant’s explanation that there was temporary loss of touch with their counsel then  on record for them;  by   the   time  the   applicant’s  contact  party,  the   eighth  (8th) applicant got to  know   of the  delivery of the  judgment time for the lodging of the  notice of appeal had  already lapsed; there is sufficient demonstration of intention to appeal borne out by the  fact that as soon as the  applicant learned of the  delivery of the  Judgment against them, they gave  instructions for the  lodging of the  notice of appeal albeit out of time and  soon  thereafter promptly presented the  application under review for enlargement of time.

The  judgment sought to  be  impugned was  delivered on  the  13th day  of May, 2014. Fourteen (14)  days  period within which the  notice of appeal should have  been  lodged lapsed on the  27th  day  of May,  2014. The  notice of appeal was  erroneously lodged on  the  27th  day  of June, 2014  out of time and  without leave, a period of thirty (30)  days  from the   date   of  the   lapse   of  time  for  lodging of  the   said   notice.  The application to regularize the  irregular lodging of the  notice of appeal is dated 9th  July, 2014  and  lodged on 15th  July, 2014  a period of about 18 days  from the  date  of the  erroneous lodging of the  notice of appeal. In my  opinion, the  above sequence of events portrays a litigant making efforts  to   comply  with  this   Courts   Rules   in   abid   to  exercise his undoubted right of appeal.

I therefore make  no hesitation in stating that the  applicants have brought themselves within the  ambit of the  prerequisites required to be  established before a litigant can  earn  a relief under rule  4 of this Court’s Rules.

In the  result, I find merit in the  applicant’s application dated the 9th  day  of July, 2014  and  lodged on the  15th  day  of July, 2014. Prayer  1 thereof is allowed. Prayer  2 is disallowed. The  applicant has  fourteen (14)  days  from the  date  of the  reading of this  ruling to lodge  a notice of appeal. There  will  be no order as to costs  since  the  application was not defended.

Datedand  delivered at Nairobi this 10thday  of October, 2014.

R.N.NAMBUYE

..............................................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

I certify that this is a

truecopy  of the original.

DEPUTY REGISTRA

D/O