[2019] KECA 291 (KLR)

[2019] KECA 291 (KLR)

The court found that while the applicant's explanation for delay—lack of notice of judgment delivery and inability to promptly pay former advocates—was not entirely satisfactory, there was insufficient evidence that the applicant or his counsel were notified of the judgment date. The delay was not inordinate, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KECA 291 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: David Rowland Matende; Applicant: City County of Nairobi; Respondent: Joshua Akeyo Ogendo
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 286 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed. Time for filing and serving Notice and Record of Appeal extended.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Service of Judgment, Delay in Filing, Ownership of Land, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Service of Judgment Delay in Filing Ownership of Land 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Rowland Matende

Applicant

City County of Nairobi

Applicant

Joshua Akeyo Ogendo

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 reason for the delay in filing the Notice and Record of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the application for extension of time was inordinate and prejudicial to the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant or his advocates were notified of the judgment delivery date.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicant's explanation for delay—lack of notice of judgment delivery and inability to promptly pay former advocates—was not entirely satisfactory, there was insufficient evidence that the applicant or his counsel were notified of the judgment date. The delay was not inordinate, and the grounds raised in the intended appeal were arguable. The court emphasized the overarching objective of administering justice without undue technicality or delay. The inconvenience to the respondent could be compensated by costs. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application and extend the time for filing and serving the Notice and Record of Appeal,...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Time for filing and serving Notice and Record of Appeal extended.

Orders

  • Applicant to file and serve the Notice of Appeal within seven (7) days from the date of the ruling.
  • Applicant to file and serve the Record of Appeal within thirty (30) days of service of the Notice of Appeal.