[2002] KECA 197 (KLR)

[2002] KECA 197 (KLR)

The court found that although the applicant's reason for failing to serve the Notice of Appeal on the second defendant was not adequate, the court was nonetheless inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. The overriding consideration was the interest of justice and the fact that the omission...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] KECA 197 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: B.P. (K) Limited; Respondent: Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation (ICDC); Respondent: Stephen K. Sugut
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 425 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to Serve Notice and Record of Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed. Extension of time granted.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Service of Process, Appeals Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Service of Process Appeals Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.P. (K) Limited

Applicant

Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation (ICDC)

Respondent

Stephen K. Sugut

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to Serve Notice and Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to serve the Notice of Appeal on the second defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's explanation for failure to serve the second defendant constitutes sufficient cause for extension.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicant's reason for failing to serve the Notice of Appeal on the second defendant was not adequate, the court was nonetheless inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. The overriding consideration was the interest of justice and the fact that the omission was due to oversight rather than deliberate disregard of the rules. Therefore, the court granted an extension of seven days from the date of the ruling for the applicant to serve the Notice of Appeal on the second defendant.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Extension of time granted.

Orders

  • Time within which to serve a Notice of Appeal on the second defendant is extended by seven days from the date of this ruling.
  • No order as to costs.