Supreme Court of Kenya Judgment: Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited vs. Commissioner of Domestic Taxes – Principles Governing Extension of Time for Filing Court Documents

Supreme Court of Kenya Judgment: Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited vs. Commissioner of Domestic Taxes – Principles Governing Extension of Time for Filing Court Document

Human is to error, and fortunately, the law recognizes that, allowing courts to have the discretion of extending time for litigants to file documents. This case summary highlights the principles governing the Supreme Court’s discretion to extend the time for filing documents in court. 

Facts

The Commissioner of Domestic Taxes, being the Respondent in this case, made an application to the Supreme Court of Kenya seeking leave for an extension of time to file its submissions. The Respondent filed its submissions on August 23^rd, 2024 instead of August 22^nd, 2024. The reason for the delay as alleged by the Respondent was occasioned by its counsel’s inadvertent oversight of the prescribed timelines, compounded by a period of illness that hindered the completion of the written submissions as initially scheduled. The Respondent claimed that the delay was not inordinate since there were valid reasons and that no prejudice would be suffered by the parties if the Application was allowed. 

The Petitioner, through its advocates, opposed the application by contending that the Respondent had failed to establish a proper basis for the delay as no application for an extension of time was made before the expiration of the stipulated timelines. The petitioner claimed that the Respondent ought to have presented a doctor’s report, and in the absence of one, a sick sheet from a pharmacy. 

An interested party contended that the Respondent was required to file submissions by August 14^th, 2024 as opposed to August 22^nd, 2024 as asserted, representing an eight-day delay beyond the stipulated deadline. The interested party claimed that the Supreme Court would be sanctioning illegality by allowing the submissions that had already been filed without leave to remain on record. Additionally, it claimed that extension of time is an equitable remedy that should only be available to deserving parties. 

Issues for determination

1. What principles governed the exercise of discretion of the Supreme Court to extend the time for filing documents?

Analysis 

Upon perusing the Respondent’s Application, the Supreme Court established that a genuine mistake of the counsel should not be visited upon the Respondent who is desirous of ventilating its case on merit. The court found that the delay was not inordinate since there were valid reasons for the said delay. Additionally, the Supreme Court established that no prejudice would be suffered by the other parties if the Application is allowed.

The court further established that the Respondent had adequately established a plausible reason for the delay. That the delay was neither unreasonable nor inordinate. As such, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion by extending the time for the Respondent to file its submissions. Thus, the application was allowed.

The court relied on the following principles to make a ruling; 

1. Extension of time was not a right of a party. It was an equitable remedy that was only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court;
2. A party who sought for extension of time had the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court;
3. Whether the court should exercise the discretion to extend time, was a consideration to be made on a case-to-case basis;
4. Whether there was a reasonable reason for the delay. The delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the court; 
5. Whether there would be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if the extension was granted;
6. Whether the application had been brought without undue delay; and 
7. Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be a consideration for extending time.

Conclusion

The ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to court timelines while acknowledging genuine circumstances that may warrant flexibility. This ensures that justice is served without unduly compromising procedural fairness. 

For more insights pertaining to this matter, you can reach the writer at nyala@mmsadvocates.co.ke . You can also contact us at MMS Advocates, Lower Duplex Apartments, Lower Hill Road, or email us at info@mmsadvocates.co.ke