[1998] KECA 249 (KLR)

[1998] KECA 249 (KLR)

The court found that while the applicant was unaware of the ruling until November 1996, he failed to provide any explanation for the subsequent nine-month delay before filing the application for extension of time. The absence of a satisfactory explanation for this period meant the applicant did not meet the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] KECA 249 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Charles Ombati Ontiri; Respondent: Ebisiba Bosibori Angwenyi
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 228 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Judicial Discretion

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

Charles Ombati Ontiri

Applicant

Ebisiba Bosibori Angwenyi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing the notice of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicant was unaware of the ruling until November 1996, he failed to provide any explanation for the subsequent nine-month delay before filing the application for extension of time. The absence of a satisfactory explanation for this period meant the applicant did not meet the threshold for the court to exercise its discretion in his favour. Consequently, the application for extension of time was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The motion for extension of time is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.