[2011] KEHC 849 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause for the extension of time to file suit as required under the Limitation of Actions Act. The lapse of time was inordinately long, with the application being filed almost two years after the limitation period had lapsed and prosecuted nearly four...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 849 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Caroline Akoth Okello (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of Mark Okello Aroko); Respondent: Hon Attorney General (sued on behalf of the Ministry of Provincial Administration & Internal Security & The Police Commissioner)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 299 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Limitation of Actions, Grant of Letters of Administration
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Caroline Akoth Okello (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of Mark Okello Aroko)
Applicant
Hon Attorney General (sued on behalf of the Ministry of Provincial Administration & Internal Security & The Police Commissioner)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time to file suit out of time.
- 2 Whether the delay in obtaining grant of letters of administration justified the extension sought.
- 3 Whether the application complied with the requirements of the Limitation of Actions Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause for the extension of time to file suit as required under the Limitation of Actions Act. The lapse of time was inordinately long, with the application being filed almost two years after the limitation period had lapsed and prosecuted nearly four years after the cause of action arose. The applicant's counsel was not diligent, having filed the initial suit without a grant of representation and proceeding despite knowing the suit was time-barred. The court held that the requirements for extension of time were not met and that the objection by the respondent was merited. Consequently, the application for extension of time was...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for extension of time is dismissed.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISUMU
MISC. APPL. 299 OF 2010
CAROLINE AKOTH OKELLO (Suing as the legal
representative of the estate ofMARK OKELLO
AROKO…………………………………………………………………….APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
HON ATTORNEY GENERAL
(sued on behalf of the Ministry of
PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION & INTERNAL
SECURITY & THE POLICE COMMISSIONER ………...............…… RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The application before court was filed by the applicant Carolyne Akoth Okelloon behalf of the estate of Mark Okello Aroko,by way of a notice of motion pursuant to Sections 3A and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order XLIX Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 27(1)(b) of the Limitations Act. The same seeks for extension of time within which to file suit. The application is based on the affidavit of Stephen Aluoch K’opotand on the grounds that; the delay was inadvertent, in that there was a delay by the applicant in obtaining the grant of letters of administration, that no party will be prejudiced and that there was no omission on the part of the applicant.
The application was objected to by the respondent, the Honourable the Attorney General sued on behalf of the Provincial Administration and Internal Security on the grounds that; the applicant has not demonstrated that she was under a disability that would entitle her to the extension sought; the plaintiff did not comply with Section 27(1) (d) & 2 of the Limitation of Actions Act; the application is misconceived, bad in law & fact and an abuse of court process.
My reading of the matter before me is that counsel for the applicant was not diligent in his handling of the matter. One, he filed the initial suit without grant of representation. He applied for the grant and obtained the same on the 12th of June, 2009; and although he knew or ought to have known that at the time of filing suit the cause was time barred he proceeded with the matter. Time for filing suit lapsed on 29th of December, 2008. This application was filed on 5th of November, 2010 almost 2 years after lapse of time, prosecuted on 29th of September, 2011 almost 4 years since cause of action.
A part from failing in demonstrating good cause that would allow the extension under the relevant Sections of the Law in my view the lapse of time is inordinately long. In the circumstance I find the objection merited.
I decline to grant the orders, the application is dismissed. Costs in the cause.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011.
ALI-ARONI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
…………………………………………… present for Appellant
……………………………….….…….present for Respondent