[2023] KEHC 23319 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 23319 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any explanation for the delay of about five years between the delivery of the impugned judgment and the filing of the application for leave to appeal out of time. The absence of a plausible and satisfactory explanation meant that the applicant did not meet the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 23319 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Ali Wario Aberee; Respondent: Silas Bundi; Respondent: Ayub Kimathi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Case E051 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Delay in Filing Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Out of Time Delay in Filing Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Wario Aberee

Appellant

Silas Bundi

Respondent

Ayub Kimathi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to appeal out of time under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any explanation for the delay of about five years between the delivery of the impugned judgment and the filing of the application for leave to appeal out of time. The absence of a plausible and satisfactory explanation meant that the applicant did not meet the threshold required to invoke the court’s discretionary power under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. The court emphasized the need to protect the respondent from further prejudice caused by the prolonged delay in realizing the fruits of his judgment. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated June 12, 2023 is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.