[1997] KECA 221 (KLR)

[1997] KECA 221 (KLR)

The court refused to exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time due to the applicants' failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. The application was presented in a slip-shod manner, lacking essential documents such as the dated ruling, reasons for the ruling, and relevant pleadings. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1997] KECA 221 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Amos Leitato Kishoyian & 4 Others; Respondent: Keroke Ole Nkoitiko & 11 Others
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 331 of 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application struck out with costs
Judges
AB Shah
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Non Compliance With Rules
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Non Compliance With Rules

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amos Leitato Kishoyian & 4 Others

Applicant

Keroke Ole Nkoitiko & 11 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have satisfied the requirements for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the application complies with the mandatory procedural rules regarding appeals.

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time due to the applicants' failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. The application was presented in a slip-shod manner, lacking essential documents such as the dated ruling, reasons for the ruling, and relevant pleadings. The applicants also failed to serve the letter bespeaking proceedings to the respondents. The court emphasized that compliance with procedural rules is not optional, and the deficiencies in the application were fatal. Consequently, the application was struck out with costs.

Court Disposition

application struck out with costs

Orders

  • The application is struck out with costs.