1.The much-flogged plea rule that the mistake of counsel should not be visited upon an innocent litigant does not have a blanket application and neither does it have doctrinal status. The court will always look at the conduct of the party pointing the finger of blame in order to make a just decision. See Daqare Transporters Limited v Chevron Kenya Limited eKLR.The applicant, Clement O. Sakiri, has moved the Court by a Motion dated 9th December, 2021, seeking the following orders;a)Tha this Honourable Court be pleased to extend time within which the Applicant may file his Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal out of time.b)That the costs of this application be in the cause.
2.The application is based on 9 grounds and is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. He deposed that the impugned judgment was delivered on 28th September 2021. Aggrieved by the decision, he instructed his former advocates, M/s Odondi Awino & Company Advocates to prefer an appeal. At the end of October, he visited the advocate’s offices to establish the progress of the appeal only to be informed that Mr. Awino did not wish to act for him anymore. He then sought new representation. The counsel currently on record took over the matter, filed a notice of change of advocates by consent on 11th November, 2021, lodged a letter bespeaking the proceedings. Counsel urged that the delay, which was occasioned by the former advocate, was not inordinate and therefore this application should be allowed.
3.The respondent filed a replying affidavit. In a nutshell, she deposed that this application is a waste of the Court’s time. The delay is inordinate and the applicant has failed to proffer a satisfactory reason for it.
5.I have considered the application but I am afraid I am not persuaded by the reason proffered for the delay. As earlier stated, solely blaming one’s advocate is not enough to unlock the Court’s discretionary favor. The applicant has failed to advance any evidence of the actions he took, as the litigant and owner of the appeal, to have it lodged in time. All he did was change advocates once time had already lapsed. See Rajesh Rughani -vs- Fifty Investments Limited & another  eKLR
6.Even though there is period set by the law, beyond which delay is ipso facto inordinate, anyone seeking this relief must satisfactorily explain the cause of the delay. See Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo -vs- Paul Kipkorir Kibet eKLR. I am not convinced that the applicant has satisfactorily explained the delay. I note, in fact, that the current advocates took about a month after coming on record, to make this application. No explanation is given for that delay.
7.In the result, I decline to grant the prayers as sought and accordingly dismiss the application with costs.