[2019] KEHC 1681 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 1681 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was represented by counsel at the time judgment was delivered, and therefore could not claim lack of notice. There was no evidence of correspondence or effort by the applicant's advocate to trace the allegedly missing court file. The applicant failed to provide a sufficient...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 1681 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Clifford Omondi Ooko; Respondent: Josphat Ndwiga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 171 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
RB Ngetich
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Out of Time, Judgment Delivery Notice, Court File Missing, Delay Explanation, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Out of Time Judgment Delivery Notice Court File Missing Delay Explanation Costs Award

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clifford Omondi Ooko

Applicant

Josphat Ndwiga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was aware or ought to have been aware of the delivery of judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the application was sufficiently explained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was represented by counsel at the time judgment was delivered, and therefore could not claim lack of notice. There was no evidence of correspondence or effort by the applicant's advocate to trace the allegedly missing court file. The applicant failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay of nearly one year in seeking leave to appeal out of time. Furthermore, the draft memorandum of appeal did not disclose clear issues that would persuade the court to interfere with the lower court's findings. Consequently, the court held that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant the exercise of discretion in his favor and dismissed...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dated 28th June 2018 is dismissed.
  • Costs to the respondent.