[2011] KEHC 2161 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicant obtained the proceedings from the subordinate court within the required period, he delayed for three months before filing the application for leave to appeal out of time. The applicant failed to provide a cogent or valid reason for this delay. The court held that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2161 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Aggrey O. Obare; Respondent: Telkom Kenya Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 59 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeal Out of Time, Laches, Court Discretion, Dismissal of Suit
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Aggrey O. Obare
Applicant
Telkom Kenya Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to enlarge time for filing an appeal under Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicant obtained the proceedings from the subordinate court within the required period, he delayed for three months before filing the application for leave to appeal out of time. The applicant failed to provide a cogent or valid reason for this delay. The court held that the applicant was guilty of laches and indolence, and therefore, the justice of the case did not warrant the exercise of discretion in his favour. Consequently, the application for extension of time was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The applicant’s application filed on 1st December 2010 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 59 OF 2010
AGGREY O. OBARE ………………………...............……………….. APPLICANT
V E R SU S
TELKOM KENYA LIMITED ………………....................…………... RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
On 20th August 2010, a suit in which the applicant had filed against the respondent was dismissed with costs to the respondent. In the suit, the applicant had sought to be paid some benefits after his dismissal from employment. On 1st December, 2010 the applicant filed an application pursuant to Order XLIX (now Order 50) Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. In the application, the applicant seeks leave of this court to file appeal out of time. The ground in support of the application were that the applicant was prevented from filing the appeal in time because he was awaiting proceedings from the subordinate court to enable his advocate lodge an appeal. The application is opposed. Lucy Barno, the Senior Legal Advisor of the respondent swore a replying affidavit in opposition to the application. In the said affidavit, she deponed that the applicant was guilty of laches in that he had obtained proceedings from the subordinate court on 30th August 2010 which was within the period that the applicant was required to have filed an appeal.
At the hearing of the application, this court heard oral submissions made by Mr. Onsando for the applicant and by Miss Kosgei for the respondent. I have carefully considered the said submissions. The issue for determination by this court is whether the applicant has put forward a case to entitle this court exercise its discretion in his favour and extend time for the applicant to file appeal out of time. Under Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules this court has jurisdiction to enlarge time for anything to be done under the Civil Procedure Act provided that the justice of the case requires. In the present application, although the proceedings were ready on 30th August 2010, (within the period in which the applicant would have lodged the appeal) the applicant did not present the present application to this court until three months later i.e. on 1st December 2010. The applicant did not give a cogent reason for this delay. It is clear that the applicant was indolent. He is guilty of laches. This court cannot exercise its discretion in favour of such indolent litigant. The justice of this case demands that this court declines to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. The reasons advanced for seeking enlargement of time are not valid.
For the above reasons, the applicant’s application filed in court on 1st December 2010 is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
DATED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 31ST DAY OF MAY 2011
L. KIMARU
J U D GE