[2012] KEHC 1767 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 1767 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants were not notified of the ruling dismissing their suit for want of prosecution, as the ruling was delivered in the absence of both parties and their advocates. Upon becoming aware of the dismissal, the applicants acted promptly to obtain proceedings and file the application for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 1767 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Elijah Mwangi Ngure; Applicant: Esthery W Mwangi; Respondent: Kenya Tea Development Authority; Respondent: Francis Kamau; Respondent: Lucy Muthoni Nganga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 779 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Right of Appeal, Delay in Filing Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Out of Time Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Right of Appeal Delay in Filing Appeal

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

Elijah Mwangi Ngure

Applicant

Esthery W Mwangi

Applicant

Kenya Tea Development Authority

Respondent

Francis Kamau

Respondent

Lucy Muthoni Nganga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time against the dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justified given the applicant's lack of knowledge of the dismissal order.
  3. 3 Whether the negligence of the former advocate constitutes sufficient cause for extension of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were not notified of the ruling dismissing their suit for want of prosecution, as the ruling was delivered in the absence of both parties and their advocates. Upon becoming aware of the dismissal, the applicants acted promptly to obtain proceedings and file the application for leave to appeal out of time. The court held that the delay was attributable to the lack of notice and the negligence of the former advocate, which constituted sufficient cause for extension of time. Accordingly, the application for leave to file the appeal out of time was granted, with the appeal to be filed within 30 days from the date of the ruling.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Leave to file appeal out of time is granted.
  • The appeal shall be filed within 30 days of the date of this ruling.