[2021] KEHC 5785 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 5785 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was not notified of the date of delivery of judgment, and only became aware of the judgment after the time for appeal had lapsed. The delay in bringing the application was not inordinate, particularly considering the COVID-19 lockdown measures in place at the time. The respondent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 5785 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Dominic Obuya Mikwaya; Respondent: South Nyanza Sugar Company Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Migori
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E009 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Judgment Delivery Notice, Discretionary Powers, Unopposed Applications
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Judgment Delivery Notice Discretionary Powers Unopposed Applications

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dominic Obuya Mikwaya

Applicant

South Nyanza Sugar Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether failure to notify the parties of the date of delivery of judgment constitutes excusable mistake.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal out of time was made without unreasonable delay.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has an arguable appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was not notified of the date of delivery of judgment, and only became aware of the judgment after the time for appeal had lapsed. The delay in bringing the application was not inordinate, particularly considering the COVID-19 lockdown measures in place at the time. The respondent did not oppose the application, and the applicant's explanation for the delay was accepted as truthful. The court exercised its discretion to grant leave to appeal out of time, finding that the circumstances justified enlargement of time and that the applicant should not be penalized for the lack of notice regarding the judgment delivery.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicant to file and serve the appeal out of time.
  • The appeal shall be filed and served within fourteen (14) days of this ruling.