[2014] KEHC 7415 (KLR)
Despite the applicant's lack of candor regarding the events leading to the delay, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for leave to appeal out of time. The court found that the delay was relatively short (about 10 days) and emphasized the statutory right of a party to challenge a final...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 7415 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: David Wachira Ndung'u; Respondent: Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 150 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application allowed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Judgment Notice, Court Registry Practice
- 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 Wachira Ndung'u
Applicant
Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the applicant had notice of the judgment date.
- 3 Whether the applicant's explanation for delay is truthful and sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi
Despite the applicant's lack of candor regarding the events leading to the delay, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for leave to appeal out of time. The court found that the delay was relatively short (about 10 days) and emphasized the statutory right of a party to challenge a final judgment. The court acknowledged the applicant's dishonesty but determined that justice would be better served by allowing the appeal to proceed, subject to the applicant bearing the costs of the application.
Court Disposition
application allowed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 12th September 2012 is allowed.
- The applicant is granted 14 days leave to file and serve his petition of appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.150 OF 2012
DAVID WACHIRA NDUNG’U ……………………………….APPLICANT
VERSUS
KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED …………………RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The Application before Court is the Notice of Motion dated 12th September 2012 in which the Applicant seeks leave to file an Appeal out of time.
The main ground in support of application is that the Applicant never had notice of the judgment date of 9th August 2012 and that thereafter the Court file went missing until 12th September 2012. This Court is also told that the intended Appeal is high meritorious. In the affidavit sworn on 12th September 2012, the Applicant avers that the delivery of the judgment by the Trial Court was postponed severally but eventually delivered on 9th August 2012. The Applicant further avers that neither he nor his Counsel had notice of the date. That he only came to learn of the judgment on 12th September 2012 as the Court file could not be traced in the civil registry.
Opposing the application the Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit through Debra Ajwang sworn on 15th November 2012. Attached to that affidavit are copies of the proceedings and judgment of the Trial Court.
I have to agree with Counsel for the Respondent that, at least from the proceedings, there was no single adjournment or rescheduling of the judgment date. The Court record shows that on 12/9/2012 and in the presence of Counsel of both sides the Learned Magistrate set the date of the delivery of judgment for 9/08/2012 at 2. 00p.m. The Court record shows that the judgment was indeed delivered on 9/08/2012 but in the absence of parties. The time is however not indicated. It would seem that the Applicant was not entirely candid about what happened at trial and this Court would up to here be inclined to dismiss the application as it seems premised on falsehood or suppressed truth.
But I shall nevertheless allow the application because the Applicant was only 10 days (or thereabouts) late in filing the Appeal and I also consider that the right of a party to challenge a final judgment of the subordinate Court is a statutory right. Let the applicant notwithstanding his dishonesty have his day in Court. Perhaps the path that justice charts may help him realize the folly of trying to mislead those who administer it. For the fact that the Applicant was not forthright he will meet the costs of this application in any event.
6) So my orders. The Application of 12th September 2012 is allowed. Costs shall in any event be to the Respondent. The Applicant is granted 14 days leave to file and serve his Petition of Appeal.
F. TUIYOTT
J U D G E
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT BUSIA THIS 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2014.
IN THE PRESENCE OF:
……………………………………………………………COURT CLERK
…………………………………………………………FOR APPLICANT
………………………………………………………FOR RESPONDENT