[2002] KECA 231 (KLR)

[2002] KECA 231 (KLR)

The Court found that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in seeking to file and serve the notice and record of appeal out of time. The single judge exercised her discretion properly in refusing the extension, and there was no error in principle or misapprehension of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] KECA 231 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: George Gikubu Mbuthia; Respondent: Jimba Credit Corporation Ltd; Respondent: Peter Njeru Mugo
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 375 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Reference From Single Judge's Decision on Extension of Time
Outcome
Reference dismissed with costs.
Judges
RO Kwach
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Inordinate Delay
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Inordinate Delay

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Gikubu Mbuthia

Applicant

Jimba Credit Corporation Ltd

Respondent

Peter Njeru Mugo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Reference From Single Judge's Decision on Extension of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had provided a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing and serving the notice and record of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the Court should interfere with the single judge's refusal to grant an extension of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in seeking to file and serve the notice and record of appeal out of time. The single judge exercised her discretion properly in refusing the extension, and there was no error in principle or misapprehension of facts to warrant interference by the full bench. The reference was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The reference is dismissed with costs to the respondents.