[2021] KECA 984 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 984 (KLR)

The court found that while the applicant explained the initial delay as resulting from a dispute and dissolution of his former law firm, he failed to provide crucial information regarding when the file was actually released to his advocate and how much time elapsed before the application for extension was filed....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 984 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Daniel Kiilu Ngomo; Respondent: Simon Ngao Mbithe
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E006 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
GG Okwengu
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Delay and Explanation, Judicial Discretion, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Appeals Process Delay and Explanation Judicial Discretion Land Disputes

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Kiilu Ngomo

Applicant

Simon Ngao Mbithe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing the notice and record of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicant explained the initial delay as resulting from a dispute and dissolution of his former law firm, he failed to provide crucial information regarding when the file was actually released to his advocate and how much time elapsed before the application for extension was filed. This lack of specificity and failure to disclose material facts prevented the court from determining whether the delay was inordinate or excusable. As a result, the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time, holding that the applicant had not met the threshold for judicial intervention under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 9th July 2020 is dismissed.