[2000] KECA 110 (KLR)

[2000] KECA 110 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's delay in bringing the application for extension of time was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, the court held that as long as the defective Notice of Appeal filed on 20th March, 1998 remained on record and no prayer for its withdrawal was made, it would be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] KECA 110 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Coastal Kenya Enterprises Limited; Respondent: Sicilia Kasiti
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 136 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Procedural Irregularity
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Procedural Irregularity

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Coastal Kenya Enterprises Limited

Applicant

Sicilia Kasiti

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the existence of a defective Notice of Appeal precludes the grant of leave to file a fresh Notice of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's delay in bringing the application for extension of time was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, the court held that as long as the defective Notice of Appeal filed on 20th March, 1998 remained on record and no prayer for its withdrawal was made, it would be an abuse of jurisdiction to grant leave to file another Notice of Appeal. The application was therefore dismissed as the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for the exercise of the court's discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for extension of time is dismissed with costs to the respondent.