[2004] KEHC 2635 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 2635 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff's application was incompetent and bad in law because it failed to specify the period of time sought to be extended, a necessary requirement for the court to exercise its discretion under the relevant procedural rules. The court held that mere reference to procedural rules in an affidavit does not constitute a proper application. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's request for leave to appeal under rule 11(3) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order was dependent on the grant of extension of time, which was not properly sought. The court emphasized that section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be used to override explicit procedural...

Citation
[2004] KEHC 2635 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Afrison Import & Export Ltd.; Defendant: Continental Credit Finance Ltd.
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
12 February 2004
Case Number
Civil Case 899 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Taxation of Costs, Advocates Remuneration Order
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Extension of Time Taxation of Costs Advocates Remuneration Order

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Afrison Import & Export Ltd.

Plaintiff

Continental Credit Finance Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the ruling dated 28th February 2003.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under rule 11(3) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's application is competent and properly before the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's application was incompetent and bad in law because it failed to specify the period of time sought to be extended, a necessary requirement for the court to exercise its discretion under the relevant procedural rules. The court held that mere reference to procedural rules in an affidavit does not constitute a proper application. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's request for leave to appeal under rule 11(3) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order was dependent on the grant of extension of time, which was not properly sought. The court emphasized that section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be used to override explicit procedural...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application as amended is dismissed with costs to the defendant.