[2020] KEHC 2261 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 2261 (KLR)

The court found that although it has unfettered discretion to extend time for filing an appeal, the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of eight months after the lapse of the prescribed period. The applicant did not require certified copies of proceedings and judgment to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 2261 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: THE BOG DR. ALOO GUMBI MIXED SEC. SCHOOL; Respondent: ELVINA AILA OTIENO
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 115 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Judicial Discretion, Delay in Filing, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Judicial Discretion Delay in Filing Costs Award

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE BOG DR. ALOO GUMBI MIXED SEC. SCHOOL

Applicant

ELVINA AILA OTIENO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although it has unfettered discretion to extend time for filing an appeal, the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of eight months after the lapse of the prescribed period. The applicant did not require certified copies of proceedings and judgment to file the appeal, and there was no material to justify the invocation of the court's discretion in their favor. The delay was not excusable, and the application did not meet the threshold for extension of time as set out in the relevant legal principles and case law. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 08.06.2020 filed on 07.07.2020 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.