[2002] KECA 260 (KLR)

[2002] KECA 260 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the notice and record of appeal. The applicant blamed his previous advocate but did not present any evidence from the advocate to substantiate this claim. Furthermore, the applicant did not disclose when he became...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] KECA 260 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Alexander Nyakwaka; Respondent: Masiliana Awiti Onyuka
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 179 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Court Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Court Discretion

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Nyakwaka

Applicant

Masiliana Awiti Onyuka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the notice and record of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's explanation for the delay, blaming his advocate, is credible and supported by evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the notice and record of appeal. The applicant blamed his previous advocate but did not present any evidence from the advocate to substantiate this claim. Furthermore, the applicant did not disclose when he became aware of the decision of the superior court, which is a critical factor in the exercise of the court's discretion to extend time. The court concluded that, in the absence of credible evidence and a clear explanation for the delay, there was no basis to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. The application for extension of time was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for extension of time to lodge and serve the notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time is dismissed with costs.