[2020] KEHC 2344 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 2344 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was aware of the judgment delivered on 23.10.19 but only moved the court for extension of time to appeal eight months after the lapse of the statutory period. The applicant's explanation for the delay, namely the need to obtain certified copies of proceedings and judgment, was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 2344 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: The BOG Dr. Aloo Gumbi Mixed Sec. School; Respondent: EJA (minor suing thro’ next friend JANO)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 118 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 Awards
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Judicial Discretion Delay in Filing Costs Awards

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The BOG Dr. Aloo Gumbi Mixed Sec. School

Applicant

EJA (minor suing thro’ next friend JANO)

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 23.10.19 but only moved the court for extension of time to appeal eight months after the lapse of the statutory period. The applicant's explanation for the delay, namely the need to obtain certified copies of proceedings and judgment, was found to be unconvincing, as such documents were not required for the filing of 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 awarded to the respondent.