[1999] KECA 45 (KLR)

[1999] KECA 45 (KLR)

The Court found that the applicant and its advocate were not responsible for the procedural blunder that led to the omission of an order extending time for filing the Record of Appeal. The error was attributable to the Court itself. In the interests of justice, and since there was no delay or fault on the part of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] KECA 45 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Bank fur Arbeit and Wirtschaft A.G.; Respondent: Attorney-General; Respondent: Official Receiver, Ken-Ren Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 179 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application allowed. Extension of time granted for filing Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Notice of Appeal, Record of Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Notice of Appeal Record of 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank fur Arbeit and Wirtschaft A.G.

Applicant

Attorney-General

Respondent

Official Receiver, Ken-Ren Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal and a Record of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant or its advocate was responsible for the delay or procedural blunder.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant and its advocate were not responsible for the procedural blunder that led to the omission of an order extending time for filing the Record of Appeal. The error was attributable to the Court itself. In the interests of justice, and since there was no delay or fault on the part of the applicant, the Court exercised its discretion to grant the extension of time for both the Notice of Appeal and the Record of Appeal. The Court also noted that no order as to costs was appropriate in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Extension of time granted for filing Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal.

Orders

  • Time for filing a Notice of Appeal extended by 14 days from the date of the ruling.
  • Time for filing the Record of Appeal extended by 60 days from the date of filing the Notice of Appeal.