[1995] KECA 103 (KLR)

[1995] KECA 103 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had been afforded an opportunity to appear before the Court Brokers Licensing Board and to offer his explanation regarding the alleged misconduct. The Board, after considering his explanation, found him guilty of failing to comply with rule 28(1) of the Court Brokers Rules, which...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1995] KECA 103 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Evans Aura Boaz; Respondent: The Chairman, Court Brokers Licensing Board
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Application 219 of 1995
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition, Disciplinary Proceedings, Licensing Boards
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Judicial Review Certiorari Prohibition Disciplinary Proceedings Licensing Boards

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

Evans Aura Boaz

Applicant

The Chairman, Court Brokers Licensing Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has an arguable appeal with a likelihood of success.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing by the Court Brokers Licensing Board.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had been afforded an opportunity to appear before the Court Brokers Licensing Board and to offer his explanation regarding the alleged misconduct. The Board, after considering his explanation, found him guilty of failing to comply with rule 28(1) of the Court Brokers Rules, which was a serious breach involving mishandling of funds received on behalf of decree holders. The court was not convinced that the applicant was denied a fair hearing or that there was any breach of natural justice. Furthermore, the court held that the applicant had not demonstrated the existence of an arguable appeal with a likelihood of success, as required for the exercise of...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for extension of time to file appeal out of time is dismissed with costs.