[2021] KECA 886 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 886 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to act in good faith by not clarifying the status of their own intended appeal and not controverting the respondent's explanation for the delay. The respondent's delay in filing the record of appeal was plausibly due to his intention to file a cross-appeal, which was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 886 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Bhavin Ashwin Gudka; Applicant: Ashwin Ramji Gudka; Respondent: Kirisantus Odero
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 117 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
F Sichale
Legal Topics
Appeal Timelines, Record of Appeal, Cross Appeal Procedure, Good Faith in Litigation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Appeal Timelines Record of Appeal Cross Appeal Procedure Good Faith in Litigation

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

Bhavin Ashwin Gudka

Applicant

Ashwin Ramji Gudka

Applicant

Kirisantus Odero

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Strike Out Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's record of appeal should be struck out for being filed outside the statutory timelines.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the record of appeal was attributable to the applicants' conduct.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was justified in filing the appeal as a cross-appellant after the applicants failed to file their record of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to act in good faith by not clarifying the status of their own intended appeal and not controverting the respondent's explanation for the delay. The respondent's delay in filing the record of appeal was plausibly due to his intention to file a cross-appeal, which was frustrated by the applicants' failure to file their record of appeal. The applicants did not provide evidence to refute the respondent's claims or to show that the respondent was served with the necessary documents in time. In light of the overriding objective under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and the circumstances of the case, the court held that the applicants' motion to strike...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The motion dated 2nd November 2018 is dismissed in its entirety with costs to the respondent.