[2020] KECA 712 (KLR)

[2020] KECA 712 (KLR)

The court found that the delay of nine months in filing the notice and record of appeal was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. The medical evidence provided by the 2nd applicant did not establish that he suffered from memory loss or was incapable of giving instructions for the entire period of delay. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KECA 712 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Bake N Bite (Nairobi) Limited; Applicant: Seif Mohamed Seif; Respondent: Bakehouse Investments Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 284 of 2019
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 against the 2nd applicant
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Summary Judgment, Appeal Rights, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Summary Judgment Appeal Rights Judicial 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bake N Bite (Nairobi) Limited

Applicant

Seif Mohamed Seif

Applicant

Bakehouse Investments Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the notice and record of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants require leave to appeal from the order dismissing their application to set aside summary judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the length and reasons for the delay justify the exercise of the court's discretion to extend time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay of nine months in filing the notice and record of appeal was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. The medical evidence provided by the 2nd applicant did not establish that he suffered from memory loss or was incapable of giving instructions for the entire period of delay. The court also held that lack of payment of advocate's fees and lack of instructions did not justify such a prolonged delay, especially given the importance of timelines in litigation. The court further determined that the applicant did not require leave to appeal from the order dismissing the application to set aside summary judgment, as such an appeal lies as of right. Ultimately,...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs against the 2nd applicant

Orders

  • The application for extension of time to file and serve the notice and record of appeal out of time is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent against the 2nd applicant.