1.I have before me a somewhat peculiar situation. The pleadings indicate that the applicant filed an application by way of notice of motion dated December 5, 2022 brought under sections 3(1), 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules. The main prayer sought in the application is that this Court extends time to file and serve a notice of appeal against the ruling of the High Court at Kakamega (WM Musyoka J) dated October 7, 2022 in High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No E106 of 2021.
2.It appears that in response to that application, the respondent filed an affidavit disputing the reason that the applicant had given for seeking extension of time-that the ruling of Musyoka J had been given on October 7, 2022 without notice to it, and that it had only learnt that the ruling had been delivered on November 28, 2022, by which time the 7-day period prescribed by the law for lodging a notice of appeal had lapsed. The affidavit from the respondent has not been placed before me. It appears, however, from the averments of the applicant’s counsel, Javier Munzala and Flavian Mulama, both sworn on February 6, 2023, that the respondent deposed that Flavian Mulama was in court, holding brief for Mr. Munzala, when the ruling was delivered.
3.Following the response from the respondent, the applicant filed a second application dated February 7, 2023. This application is expressed to be brought under sections 3(1), 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Rule 31 and 44 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 and seeks orders, reproduced verbatim, that:
4.The reasons advanced for this application are that in the application dated December 5, 2022, the applicant seeks extension of time to file an appeal against the ruling and orders of Musyoka J made on October 7, 2022. The applicant has come across new and additional evidence which is relevant to its application dated December 5, 2022 which was not available to the applicant at the time of filing the said application. Though it had applied for the typed proceedings on December 1, 2022, the proceedings only became available to it on February 3, 2023.
5.Ordinarily, when an opposing party raises an issue in an affidavit in response to an application, the normal response is to file a further affidavit. I believe that Rule 45 of the Court of Appeal Rules covers what the applicant intends to achieve with its application dated February 7, 2023. It provides that:
6.For a reason that is not clear from the pleadings, the applicant has elected to file a second application under Rule 31 of the Court of Appeal Rules. A simple reading of this Rule, however, will demonstrate that it is not intended to address situations such as the applicant finds itself in. The Rule states as follows:
7.The application dated February 7, 2023 is, in my view, totally misconceived. The applicant has the option of invoking Rule 45(2) to file a supplementary affidavit or affidavits to place before the Court the additional information it wishes to. The application dated February 7, 2023 is accordingly dismissed. As there was no response thereto by the respondent, there shall be no order as to costs.
8.The applicant is at liberty to take appropriate action with respect to its application for extension of time dated December 5, 2022 and thereafter have it placed before a single judge for hearing and determination.