Court gravelIn a legal twist that underscores the often-complex processes of justice, a Mombasa woman has been granted a crucial lifeline in her battle against the Kenya Ports Authority (KPA).
The Court of Appeal in Mombasa, under the hand of Justice F. Tuiyott, has allowed an application for an extension of time, paving the way for Saidi Abdalla Chande to file her appeal against an earlier judgment by the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC).
The saga began following a judgment delivered on January 25, 2024, by Justice Monica Mbaru of the ELRC in Mombasa.
The details of the initial case, ELRC Cause No. E087 of 2023, remain within the confines of the legal documents, but its impact on Chande was significant enough to warrant an appeal.
According to the court documents, Chande promptly took the first step towards appeal by instructing her legal team to lodge a notice of appeal.
This was duly filed on February 9th, 2024, signaling her intent to challenge the Employment and Labour Relations Court's decision.
However, the path to a full appeal was fraught with administrative hurdles.
Chande's affidavit reveals a frustrating struggle to obtain the necessary documents – the judgment and proceedings of the initial ELRC case – from the Mombasa registry.
Despite these documents being certified as ready on April 29, 2024, her advocates encountered unexplained delays in accessing them, attributed to reasons provided by the registry staff.
The application for an extension of time, dated September 18, 2024, became necessary due to these delays.
Chande sought an order from the Court of Appeal to retroactively validate the memorandum of appeal and record of appeal, which had already been filed in Civil Appeal No. E150 of 2024.
Effectively, she was asking the court to overlook the fact that her appeal documents were submitted outside the initially stipulated timeframe.
Justice Tuiyott, in his ruling delivered on May 9, 2025, meticulously considered the circumstances presented by Chande.
The standard legal procedure dictates that an appeal should typically be filed within sixty days of the notice of appeal, which in this case would have been around April 11, 2024.
The fact that the proceedings were only certified ready on April 29, 2024, already presented a compressed timeline.
Ultimately, the appeal was filed approximately sixty days after this initial deadline.
The core of Chande's explanation for the delay rested on the difficulties her counsel's clerk faced in retrieving the certified copies of the judgment and proceedings.
She contended that despite the registry confirming their readiness in late April, it took until June 29, 2024 – nearly three months after certification – to finally obtain these crucial documents.
Justice Tuiyott acknowledged that the situation was compounded by an oversight on the part of Chande's legal team. The letter formally requesting the certified proceedings had not been served upon the respondent's counsel, the Kenya Ports Authority.
This omission, while seemingly minor, contributed to the protracted timeline and made the delay appear more significant.
However, the learned Judge of Appeal adopted a pragmatic and compassionate approach.
While recognising the inexcusable nature of the oversight regarding the service of the bespeaking letter, Justice Tuiyott focused on the overall context of the delay.
He noted that the actual delay in filing the appeal, had the letter been served promptly, would have been considerably shorter. Crucially, Justice Tuiyott considered the potential prejudice to the respondent, the Kenya Ports Authority.
He explicitly stated that Chande had "not demonstrated, not least alleged, that the respondent will suffer prejudice should extension be granted."
This lack of demonstrable harm to the KPA played a significant role in the court's decision to exercise its discretion in favor of Chande.
In his concluding remarks, Justice Tuiyott declared, "Given the overall circumstances here, the Court finds that the delay is not inordinate and has been explained."
This statement highlights the court's assessment that while there were delays, they were not excessively long or without a reasonable (albeit partly administrative) explanation.
Ultimately, the application dated September 18, 2024, was allowed, specifically in terms of prayer number 2.
This means that the memorandum of appeal and record of appeal already filed in Civil Appeal No. E150 of 2024 will now be officially recognised as properly filed.
The costs associated with this application for extension of time will be determined within the main appeal itself, indicating that the legal battle between Chande and the Kenya Ports Authority is far from over.
This ruling offers a glimmer of hope for Chande, providing her with a second chance to argue her case before the appellate court.
It also serves as a reminder of the complexities and occasional frustrations inherent in the legal system, where administrative procedures can significantly impact the progress of justice.
The case now moves forward to the substantive appeal, where the merits of Chande's challenge to the Employment and Labour Relations Court's original judgment will be heard and determined.
The outcome of this appeal will undoubtedly be of significant interest to both parties and could have broader implications depending on the nature of the initial dispute.
For now, however, Chande has cleared a major procedural hurdle, and her pursuit of justice continues.
