[2023] KEHC 19186 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 19186 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant delayed for over three years in seeking to file the intended appeal, and the explanation provided—that the pendency of the respondents' appeal prevented earlier filing—was untenable. The applicant could have cross-appealed during the pendency of the respondents' appeal. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 19186 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Samwel Kasera Agia; Respondent: Dominic Asiago Asia; Respondent: Bonifas Agia Odoro
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Case E055 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
KW Kiarie
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Discretion of Court, Delay in Filing Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Discretion of Court 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samwel Kasera Agia

Applicant

Dominic Asiago Asia

Respondent

Bonifas Agia Odoro

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay of over three years in filing the intended appeal is excusable under section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the application for extension of time constitutes an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant delayed for over three years in seeking to file the intended appeal, and the explanation provided—that the pendency of the respondents' appeal prevented earlier filing—was untenable. The applicant could have cross-appealed during the pendency of the respondents' appeal. The court held that the delay was inordinate, no good and sufficient cause was demonstrated, and the application amounted to an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the application for extension of time to appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for extension of time to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of the application to the respondents.