[1998] KECA 244 (KLR)
The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was not attributable to any fault on the part of the applicant and that there was no inordinate delay after the applicant became aware of the ruling. The paramount consideration under rule 4 is that justice be done, and the court is vested with broad discretion to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] KECA 244 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: George Cheyne & 20 Others; Respondent: Robin Munyua Kimotho
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 247 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time
- Outcome
- Application allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Court Discretion, Appeal Filing Deadlines
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
George Cheyne & 20 Others
Applicant
Robin Munyua Kimotho
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and record of appeal.
- 2 What principles guide the court in exercising its discretion to extend time under rule 4.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was not attributable to any fault on the part of the applicant and that there was no inordinate delay after the applicant became aware of the ruling. The paramount consideration under rule 4 is that justice be done, and the court is vested with broad discretion to extend time. In the circumstances, the court was satisfied that this was a fit and proper case for the exercise of its discretion to grant an extension of time for filing the notice of appeal and the record of appeal.
Court Disposition
Application allowed.
Orders
- The Notice of Appeal to be filed within 7 days from the date of the ruling.
- The record of appeal to be filed within 45 days thereafter.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: LAKHA, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 247 OF 1998 (98/98UR)
BETWEEN
GEORGE CHEYNE & 20 OTHERS ............................APPLICANT
AND
ROBIN MUNYUA KIMOTHO .................................RESPONDENT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: LAKHA, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 247 OF 1998 (98/98UR) BETWEEN
R U L I N G
This is yet another application where the question arises as to the principle underlying the grant by the Court of an extension of time in its discretion. The starting point is as it must be rule 4 itself which confers the widest measure of discretion and makes no distinction between the various classes of cases. The rule requires justice to be done as the paramount consideration. Here, I am satisfied that the appeal was not filed in time through no fault on the part of the applicant. Assuming, without deciding, that the applicant learnt of the Ruling in August, 1998 I am satisfied that there has been no inordinate delay. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that this is a fit and proper case for the exercise of my discretion.
Accordingly, I order that the Notice of Appeal be filed within 7 days from today and the record of appeal within 45 days thereafter. Costs shall abide the appeal. Made and delivered at Nairobi this 28th day of October, 1998.
A.A. LAKHA ..................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR