[2001] KECA 336 (KLR)
The court found that the application for extension of time was brought promptly after the previous appeal was struck out and that there was no inordinate delay. The applicant had expressed a clear intention to pursue the appeal, and the omissions leading to the earlier procedural default were candidly explained by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KECA 336 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: David Kiarie Karumbo; Respondent: Kuria Kanyingi
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 259 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
- Outcome
- Application allowed; extension of time granted.
- Judges
- PK Tunoi
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Procedural Lapses
- 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
David Kiarie Karumbo
Applicant
Kuria Kanyingi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the extension of time to file a notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the delay in bringing the application was inordinate or excusable.
- 3 Whether granting the extension would prejudice the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for extension of time was brought promptly after the previous appeal was struck out and that there was no inordinate delay. The applicant had expressed a clear intention to pursue the appeal, and the omissions leading to the earlier procedural default were candidly explained by counsel. The court held that there was no compelling reason to deny the applicant the right to appeal, and any prejudice to the respondent could be compensated by costs. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion in favor of the applicant and granted the extension sought.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; extension of time granted.
Orders
- Time for filing the Notice of Appeal is extended by 7 days from today.
- Time for lodging the Record of Appeal is extended by 21 days from the date of filing the Notice of Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: TUNOI, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 259 OF 2001
BETWEEN
DAVID KIARIE KARUMBO ............................... APPLICANT
AND
KURIA KANYINGI ......................................... RESPONDENT
(Application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time in an intended appeal from a ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mitey, J.) dated 22nd January, 1999
in
H.C.C.C. NO. 4412 OF 1994) *********************
R U L I N G
This is an application by the applicant,David Kiarie Karumbo, under rule 4 of the Rules for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal and a Record of Appeal. It is apparent that the decision against which the applicant seeks to appeal was given by Mitey, J. on 22nd January, 1999. The applicant lodged an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 275 of 2000), but unfortunately, that was struck out by this Court on 10th July, 2001 as defective because it was lodged out of the prescribed time without the requisite leave.
This application was filed on 27th July, 2001, so in effect it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay in bringing it with a view to resurrecting the desired appeal.However, Mrs. Ndungu, counsel for the respondent, in resisting the application, has strenuously argued that the applicant has been indolent and guilty of laches and has not offered any explanation for the delay in filing this application.Moreover, she averred, the applicant's ignorance of the law in mounting a valid appeal should not be excused. Further, Mrs. Ndungu submitted that if the application is acceded to the respondent's rights would be prejudiced in that the applicant is desirous of continuing to harass him allegedly through the legal process while indeed the applicant holds a personal vendetta against him. It is contended that the intended appeal has political overtures; and also, that the entire process is expensive in terms of costs.
If this is the position then I must sympathise with the respondent. True, no citizen of this country should be dragged through an endless vexatious litigation. But at the moment I cannot and am not required to decide on this. Also, expensive litigation should not be superimposed on an innocent citizen. However, the respondent should take solace that if he wins he will be compensated for in costs at the end of the day. In my view and I so hold, this application has been brought without delay. Further, the applicant has clearly expressed his wish to have the dispute between him and the respondent canvassed in this Court. I do not have any good reason to deny him his undoubted right.
The counsel for the applicant, Hon. Karua, has candidly explained the omissions which resulted in the appeal being struck out and I need not rehash them here.
For the above reasons I have to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, I allow the application and extend time for filing the Notice of Appeal by 7 days from to-day and for lodging the Record of Appeal by 21 days from the date of filing the Notice of Appeal. The costs occasioned by this application shall be in the intended appeal in any event.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 6th day of December, 2001.
P. K. TUNOI
............................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR