[2010] KECA 213 (KLR)

[2010] KECA 213 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant delayed for approximately nine months in filing the notice of appeal and that the reason advanced—ignorance and inexperience—was not satisfactory. The applicant failed to seek timely advice from the court or his previous counsel. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KECA 213 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Bernard Njeru Kinyua; Respondent: Kenya Tea Development Agency
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 264 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Leave to File and Serve Notice of Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Discretion of Court, Delay in Filing, Notice of Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Discretion of Court Delay in Filing Notice 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard Njeru Kinyua

Appellant

Kenya Tea Development Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Leave to File and Serve Notice of Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing and serving the notice of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated that the intended appeal has overwhelming chances of success.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the application is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant delayed for approximately nine months in filing the notice of appeal and that the reason advanced—ignorance and inexperience—was not satisfactory. The applicant failed to seek timely advice from the court or his previous counsel. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate the merit of the intended appeal, as no draft memorandum of appeal was provided. The court held that there was no basis to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant, as neither sufficient reason for the delay nor prospects of success were established.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application filed on 3rd August, 2009 is dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.