[2020] KEHC 2304 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 2304 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was aware of the judgment delivered on 13.02.19 but only moved the court to seek extension of time to appeal on 07.07.2020, which was eight months after the time for filing an appeal had lapsed. The applicant's explanation that it required certified copies of proceedings and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 2304 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: The BOG Dr. Aloo Gumbi Mixed Sec. School; Respondent: Florence Onyango Aloo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application Application117 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Judicial Discretion, Delay in Filing, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Judicial Discretion Delay in Filing Costs Award

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The BOG Dr. Aloo Gumbi Mixed Sec. School

Applicant

Florence Onyango Aloo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant required certified copies of proceedings and judgment to file an appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was aware of the judgment delivered on 13.02.19 but only moved the court to seek extension of time to appeal on 07.07.2020, which was eight months after the time for filing an appeal had lapsed. The applicant's explanation that it required certified copies of proceedings and judgment was found to be unconvincing, as such documents were not necessary for lodging a notice of appeal. The delay was deemed inordinate and unexplained to the satisfaction of the court. The court exercised its discretion against the applicant, holding that the application for extension of time was unmeritorious and dismissing it with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 08.06.2020 filed on 07.07.2020 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.