[2023] KECA 1091 (KLR)

[2023] KECA 1091 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the six-day delay in filing the notice of appeal—namely, the director's unavailability due to urgent cancer treatment abroad—was plausible and reasonable. The delay was not inordinate, and there was no opposition from the respondents, nor any evidence of prejudice...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KECA 1091 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Eddie Kenya Limited; Respondent: Irene Mwango Anasi (Sued as the legal administratix of the Estate of Abigael Kemunto Opande (Deceased)); Respondent: Jared Tom Ngiti Opande; Respondent: Steve Nyagaka Orora; Respondent: The Land Registrar, Kisii County; Respondent: The Hon Attorney General; Respondent: Inka Holdings Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E034 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
F Tuiyott
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Court of Appeal Rules, Discretionary Powers, Delay in Filing, Prejudice to Respondent
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Court of Appeal Rules Discretionary Powers Delay in Filing Prejudice to Respondent

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eddie Kenya Limited

Applicant

Irene Mwango Anasi (Sued as the legal administratix of the Estate of Abigael Kemunto Opande (Deceased))

Respondent

Jared Tom Ngiti Opande

Respondent

Steve Nyagaka Orora

Respondent

The Land Registrar, Kisii County

Respondent

The Hon Attorney General

Respondent

Inka Holdings Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the notice of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing the notice of appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the extension is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the six-day delay in filing the notice of appeal—namely, the director's unavailability due to urgent cancer treatment abroad—was plausible and reasonable. The delay was not inordinate, and there was no opposition from the respondents, nor any evidence of prejudice to them if the extension was granted. Applying the principles under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, and guided by the decision in Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi, the court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant. The notice of appeal already filed was deemed duly filed and served, and the applicant was granted 30 days to file and serve the appeal.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated March 13, 2023 is allowed.
  • The notice of appeal dated March 8, 2023 and lodged on March 9, 2023 is deemed as duly filed and served.