[2012] KEHC 3629 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 3629 (KLR)

The court found that the delay of nearly one year in filing the application for enlargement of time was inordinate, as authorities have held that even a four-month delay can be considered excessive. The explanation provided by the applicant, namely incapacitation due to a 2003 accident, was found unsatisfactory because the applicant was able to prosecute the initial suit in 2009, six years after the accident, but claimed incapacity only when it came to filing the appeal in 2011. The medical report provided was undated and lacked proper designation, undermining its credibility. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated good and sufficient cause for the delay as required...

Citation
[2012] KEHC 3629 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Elijah Kipsoimo Maritim; Respondent: Stephen Chumo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
25 June 2012
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 129 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
A Mshila
Legal Topics
Enlargement of Time, Appeal Out of Time, Inordinate Delay, Satisfactory Explanation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Enlargement of Time Appeal Out of Time Inordinate Delay Satisfactory Explanation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elijah Kipsoimo Maritim

Applicant

Stephen Chumo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay of nearly one year in filing the application for enlargement of time was inordinate, as authorities have held that even a four-month delay can be considered excessive. The explanation provided by the applicant, namely incapacitation due to a 2003 accident, was found unsatisfactory because the applicant was able to prosecute the initial suit in 2009, six years after the accident, but claimed incapacity only when it came to filing the appeal in 2011. The medical report provided was undated and lacked proper designation, undermining its credibility. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated good and sufficient cause for the delay as required...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for enlargement of time to file an appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.