[2007] KEHC 181 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 181 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant received the certified copy of the judgment within 14 days of delivery, but waited approximately five months before filing the application for leave to appeal out of time. The explanation offered by the applicant, attributing the delay to the court, was found to be untrue and insufficient. The court held that the applicant failed to provide a good and sufficient cause for the delay, and that the delay was inordinate and unexplained. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for leave to appeal out of time.

Citation
[2007] KEHC 181 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Erick Gitonga; Respondent: Luka Gitari M’Abeta; Respondent: Auto Selection (K) Ltd; Respondent: Baseline Services
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 May 2007
Case Number
? 7 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Delay and Explanation, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Delay and Explanation Leave to Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Erick Gitonga

Applicant

Luka Gitari M’Abeta

Respondent

Auto Selection (K) Ltd

Respondent

Baseline Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated good and sufficient cause for failing to file the appeal within the prescribed period.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal out of time was sufficiently explained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant received the certified copy of the judgment within 14 days of delivery, but waited approximately five months before filing the application for leave to appeal out of time. The explanation offered by the applicant, attributing the delay to the court, was found to be untrue and insufficient. The court held that the applicant failed to provide a good and sufficient cause for the delay, and that the delay was inordinate and unexplained. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for leave to appeal out of time.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to file an appeal out of time is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.