[2017] KEELC 1393 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 1393 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of fourteen months in filing the application for extension of time to appeal. The applicant was present in court when the ruling was delivered and did not rebut the respondent's assertion to that effect. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 1393 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Edward Munene Mugo; Respondent: Bonface Muriithi Muthonji; Respondent: Eliud Gichobi Machere; Respondent: Samuel Kariithi Ruruigi t/a Quickline Auctioneers
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 37 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
Judges
BN Olao
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Out of Time, Good and Sufficient Cause, Auction Sales, Transfer of Land
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Appeals Out of Time Good and Sufficient Cause Auction Sales Transfer of Land

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Munene Mugo

Applicant

Bonface Muriithi Muthonji

Respondent

Eliud Gichobi Machere

Respondent

Samuel Kariithi Ruruigi t/a Quickline Auctioneers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated good and sufficient cause for extension of time to appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was satisfactorily explained.
  3. 3 Whether the application for extension of time should be granted in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of fourteen months in filing the application for extension of time to appeal. The applicant was present in court when the ruling was delivered and did not rebut the respondent's assertion to that effect. The court emphasized that the power to extend time is discretionary and only available where good and sufficient cause is demonstrated. In the absence of any credible explanation for the delay, the court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant and dismissed the application as devoid of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 28th August 2015 and filed on 6th October 2015 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st respondent.