[2017] KEHC 7833 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 7833 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant’s advocate died before the judgment was delivered, and the applicant was not notified of the judgment date. The respondent did not effectively dispute these facts. Although the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate, the court accepted the applicant’s explanation as sufficient cause under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and the principles set out in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v. IEBC & 7 Others. The court held that any prejudice to the respondent could be addressed by costs. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for extension of time to appeal.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 7833 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: G D; Respondent: R K
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
9 February 2017
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 452 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
LM Njuguna
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Divorce Judgments, Procedural Discretion
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family and Children Extension of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Divorce Judgments Procedural Discretion

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G D

Applicant

R K

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate and if it has been satisfactorily explained.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent will suffer prejudice if the extension is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant’s advocate died before the judgment was delivered, and the applicant was not notified of the judgment date. The respondent did not effectively dispute these facts. Although the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate, the court accepted the applicant’s explanation as sufficient cause under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and the principles set out in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v. IEBC & 7 Others. The court held that any prejudice to the respondent could be addressed by costs. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for extension of time to appeal.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The application dated 22nd October, 2015 is allowed.
  • Leave is granted to the applicant to file an appeal out of time.