[2020] KEELC 182 (KLR)
The court found that while the period between the delivery of judgment and the supply of proceedings is excludable for purposes of computing time to appeal, the applicant failed to explain the further delay of nearly four months after the proceedings were supplied. The court held that such unexplained delay requires...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 182 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Duba Ware; Respondent: Hellen Hakule Halakhe
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E011 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application not certified urgent; directions given for service and inter partes hearing.
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Delay in Proceedings
- 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
Duba Ware
Applicant
Hellen Hakule Halakhe
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the delay in filing the intended appeal was excusable due to late supply of proceedings.
- 2 Whether the applicant has sufficiently explained the additional delay after receipt of proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the period between the delivery of judgment and the supply of proceedings is excludable for purposes of computing time to appeal, the applicant failed to explain the further delay of nearly four months after the proceedings were supplied. The court held that such unexplained delay requires justification before the court can exercise its discretion to extend time. Consequently, the application was not certified urgent but was set down for inter partes hearing, with directions for proper service to the respondent.
Court Disposition
Application not certified urgent; directions given for service and inter partes hearing.
Orders
- The application is not certified urgent but will be heard on a priority basis.
- The applicant is directed to properly serve the respondent within 14 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
MERU ELC MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. E011 OF 2020
DUBA WARE.............................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
HELLEN HAKULE HALAKHE..............RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This application was handled in Chambers without the presence of the applicant due to Covid – 19 concerns.
2. This application states that it has been brought to court under Order 51 Rule 1 and Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
3. I do note that the applicant states that he could not file the intended appeal within the stipulated time because there was delay in the typing and releasing of the proceedings in the lower court. Judgment was delivered on 24th June, 2020. As the proceedings were supplied on 25th August, 2020, the period between 24th June, 2020 and 25th August, 2020 is excludable for purposes of determining if or if not time for an intended appeal can be extended.
4. However, this application has been filed close to four months after the period intimated in the certificate of delay. I deem that this is delay that deserves explaining to court.
5. In the circumstances, the following orders are issued:
a) This application is NOT certified urgent BUTwill be heard on priority basis.
b) The applicant is directed to properly serve the respondent within 14 days of today.
c) The application will be heard interpartes at Meru by the Hon. Lady Justice Lucy Mbugua on 10th February, 2021.
Delivered in Chambers at Chuka this 22nd day of December, 2020 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
P. M. NJOROGE,
JUDGE.