[1986] KEHC 53 (KLR)

[1986] KEHC 53 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to produce a certificate of delay, which is a prerequisite for the exclusion of time under rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules. Even if the applicant's version of events was accepted, the record and memorandum of appeal were due by August 10, 1985, but the application for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1986] KEHC 53 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Caleb H Akwera; Respondent: East African Consultants
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Application 65 of 1985
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
ARW Hancox
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Court Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Court Discretion

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

Caleb H Akwera

Applicant

East African Consultants

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time to file the record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a certificate of delay precludes the operation of rule 81 for exclusion of time.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the appeal is excusable under the court's discretionary powers.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to produce a certificate of delay, which is a prerequisite for the exclusion of time under rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules. Even if the applicant's version of events was accepted, the record and memorandum of appeal were due by August 10, 1985, but the application for extension was filed only on July 30, 1985, after significant delay. The proceedings and judgment were ready for collection on May 24, 1985, and the 60-day period for filing would have expired on July 25, 1985. The court held that the delays were excessive and unjustified, and that the applicant had not provided sufficient explanation or the necessary supporting documentation....

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated July 30, 1985 is dismissed with costs.