[1997] KECA 220 (KLR)

[1997] KECA 220 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient material to justify the exercise of discretion in their favour for extension of time. The application was inadequately supported, and there was no rebuttal to the respondent's submission that the intended appeal would not turn on a serious issue. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1997] KECA 220 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Abercrombie & Kent Limited; Applicant: Ilkarekeshe Group Trust Registered Trustees; Respondent: Oloololo Game Ranch Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 83 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
JE Gicheru
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Preliminary Objection, Affidavit Defects
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Preliminary Objection Affidavit Defects

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abercrombie & Kent Limited

Applicant

Ilkarekeshe Group Trust Registered Trustees

Applicant

Oloololo Game Ranch Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient material to justify extension of time to lodge the notice and record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the defect in the affidavit of Mugesa Ole Kuseyo is fatal to the applicants' case in the superior court.
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal raises a serious issue or would merely delay the prosecution of the suit in the superior court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient material to justify the exercise of discretion in their favour for extension of time. The application was inadequately supported, and there was no rebuttal to the respondent's submission that the intended appeal would not turn on a serious issue. The inadequacy of the material before the court restrained the judge from granting the extension sought under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for extension of time within which to lodge the notice and the record of appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.