Attorney General & another v Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 4 others Case Summary

Court
Supreme Court of Kenya
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
DK Maraga, PM Mwilu, MK Ibrahim, SC Wanjala, NS Ndungu
Judgment Date
October 09, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Discover the case summary of Attorney General & another v Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 4 others, exploring key legal arguments and implications. Stay informed on vital legal precedents.

Case Brief: Attorney General & another v Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 4 others


1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Attorney General & another v Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 4 others
- Case Number: Application 24 [E008] of 2020
- Court: Supreme Court of Kenya
- Date Delivered: October 9, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): DK Maraga, PM Mwilu, MK Ibrahim, SC Wanjala, NS Ndungu
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues presented to the court were:
1. Whether the applicants could be granted an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal, Petition, and Record of Appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
2. Whether the Notice of Appeal filed on June 24, 2020, could be deemed properly on record despite the delay in its transmission to the Supreme Court.

3. Facts of the Case:
The applicants, the Honourable Attorney General and the Public Procurement Oversight Authority, sought an extension of time to file necessary documents related to an appeal stemming from a previous judgment dated June 19, 2020, in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2015. The respondents included Okiya Omtatah Okoiti, Wycliffe Gisebe Nyakina, the Law Society of Kenya, Kenya Railways Corporation, and China Road and Bridge Corporation. The case revolved around procurement issues related to the construction of the Standard Gauge Railway, as governed by Article 227 of the Kenyan Constitution. The applicants argued that delays were caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic and issues with electronic filing procedures.

4. Procedural History:
The application for an extension of time was filed on August 10, 2020, and formally submitted to the Supreme Court on September 15, 2020. The applicants contended that their Notice of Appeal was filed electronically on June 24, 2020, but was not acknowledged by the Court of Appeal until July 30, 2020. The respondents raised objections, arguing that the application was defective and that the applicants had not demonstrated due diligence in pursuing their appeal. The Deputy Registrar had directed that submissions be filed by September 21, 2020, but no opposition was presented by some respondents, while others contested the application based on procedural grounds.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered several rules from the Supreme Court Rules, 2020, particularly Rule 15(2), which allows for extensions of time, and Rule 36(1), which pertains to the filing of appeals. The court also referenced Article 163(4) of the Constitution regarding jurisdiction and certification requirements for appeals.

- Case Law: The court cited *Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v. Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 7 others* SC (App) No. 16 of 2014, which established principles for granting extensions of time. The court noted that the applicants' explanations for delays were reasonable and beyond their control, as the context of the COVID-19 pandemic complicated the filing process.

- Application: In applying the rules and case law, the court found that the applicants had sufficiently explained the delay and that the delay was not inordinate. The Notice of Appeal was deemed to have been filed within the required timeframe, and the court recognized the public interest in the matter, which justified the extension of time sought by the applicants.

6. Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the applicants, allowing the Notice of Motion for an extension of time. The Notice of Appeal filed on June 24, 2020, was deemed properly on record, and the applicants were ordered to file and serve their Record of Appeal within 14 days. The decision underscored the importance of public interest in procurement issues and the court's willingness to accommodate procedural delays caused by extraordinary circumstances.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions recorded in this unanimous decision.

8. Summary:
The Supreme Court of Kenya granted the Attorney General and the Public Procurement Oversight Authority an extension of time to file their appeal concerning procurement issues related to the Standard Gauge Railway. The ruling emphasized the court's jurisdiction to extend time under the Supreme Court Rules and recognized the significance of the public interest involved in the case. The decision serves as a precedent for handling similar applications where delays are attributed to factors beyond the parties' control, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Attorney-General--another-v-Okiya-Omtatah-Okoiti--4-others-Case-Summary_1429_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries