[2018] KEHC 8094 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants and their counsel were not notified by the court of the date for delivery of the impugned judgment. As such, the delay in filing the intended appeal was not attributable to the applicants. Given this, the court exercised its discretion to enlarge the time for filing an appeal,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 8094 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Beaty Omare & 3 Others; Respondent: Damaris Adhiambo Abande
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 291 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Enlarge Time for Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Service of Judgment Notice
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Beaty Omare & 3 Others
Applicant
Damaris Adhiambo Abande
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Enlarge Time for Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time to file an appeal against the judgment delivered on 15th December, 2017.
- 2 Whether the applicants or their counsel were notified of the date for delivery of the impugned judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants and their counsel were not notified by the court of the date for delivery of the impugned judgment. As such, the delay in filing the intended appeal was not attributable to the applicants. Given this, the court exercised its discretion to enlarge the time for filing an appeal, holding that the applicants could not be faulted for the delay. The court did not find it necessary to further analyze the length of delay, chances of appeal succeeding, or prejudice to the respondent, as the lack of notice was determinative.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Time for filing an appeal against the judgment of Hon. M. Agutu (RM) delivered on 15th December, 2017 in Kisumu CMCC No. 434 of 2013 is hereby enlarged and the applicant is granted 30 days from today’s date to file the intended appeal.
- Costs of this application shall be costs in the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISUMU
MISC CIVIL APPLICATION 291 OF 2017
BEATY OMARE & 3 OTHERS.......................APPLICANTS
VERSUS
DAMARIS ADHIAMBO ABANDE..............RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By a notice of motion dated 26. 12. 17 brought under Section 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rule 6of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicants pray for orders that:-
1. This Honourable Court be pleased to enlarge time for filing an appeal against the judgment of Hon. M. Agutu (RM) delivered on 15th December, 2017 in Kisumu CMCCNo. 434 of 2013 DAMARIS ADHIAMBO ABANDEVBEATY OMARE & 3 OTHERS
2. Costs of the application be provided for
2. The application is based on the grounds among others that:
a) The applicants are aggrieved by the judgment and wish to appeal
b) The applicants were not aware of the judgment of the lower court until 4th December, 2017
3. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn on 26th December, 2017 by Ritah Orindi, the 4th applicant who reiterates the grounds on the face of the application. Annexed to the supporting affidavit is a copy of the Judgment of the lower court, letter by applicant’s advocate complaining of failure to be informed of the delivery of the judgment, draft Memorandum of Appeal, application for proceedings and judgment marked JO- 1, JO2 andJO3 a, band crespectively. In her supplementary affidavit sworn on 26. 1.18, the deponent annexes a letter from court confirming that notice of delivery of judgment was not served on their advocate.
4. The application is opposed on the grounds set out in a replying affidavit sworn by the respondent on 19. 1.18. She faults the applicants for not making a follow up on the status of the judgment.
5. In a supplementary affidavit sworn by the 4th applicant on 26. 1.18, she annexes a letter from court confirming that notice of delivery of judgment was not served on their advocate.
Issue for determination
6. The main issue for determination is whether the applicants ought to be granted a stay of execution of the decree in Kisumu CMCC No. 434 of 2013 DAMARIS ADHIAMBO ABANDEVBEATY OMARE & 3 OTHERSand leave to appeal out of time.
7. The powers of the court in deciding an application for extension of time to file an appeal are discretionary and unfettered.
8. The parameters for exercise of court’s discretion were concisely laid out in the case ofMwangi v Kenya Airways Ltd[2003] KLRwhere theCourt of Appeal expressed itself thus:-
“It is now well settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary. It is also well settled that in general the matters which this court takes into account in deciding whether to grant an extension of time are: first, the length of the delay: secondly, the reason for the delay: thirdly (possibly), the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted: and, fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted”.
Reason for the delay
9. It is on record that neither the applicants nor their counsel were notified by the court of the date for delivery of the impugned judgment. It therefore follows that the applicants cannot be faulted for not filing the intended appeal within the requisite time.
10. Having said that, I need not belabor on the issue of length of delay, the chances of appeal succeeding if the application is granted and the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted.
11. Consequently and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the notice of motion dated 26. 12. 17 is allowed in the following terms:
Time for filing an appeal against the judgment of Hon. M. Agutu (RM) delivered on 15th December, 2017 in Kisumu CMCC No. 434 of 2013 DAMARIS ADHIAMBO ABANDE V BEATY OMARE & 3 OTHERSis hereby enlargedand the applicant is granted 30 days from today’s date to file the intended appeal
Costs of this application shall be costs in the appeal
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 8thDAY OF January, 2018
T. W. CHERERE
JUDGE
Read in open court in the presence of-
Court Assistant -Felix
Applicants - Mrs Obat/Mr Odeny
Respondent - N/A