[2000] KECA 294 (KLR)

[2000] KECA 294 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants acted without delay after their previous appeal was struck out and that the fact this was a second application for extension of time was not, by itself, a conclusive bar to granting the orders sought. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicants, noting that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] KECA 294 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: George Mwangi Karanja; Applicant: Peter Ndegwa Kamonde; Respondent: Nelius Wairimu Kiunjuri
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 49 of ??
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Striking Out of Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Striking Out of Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Mwangi Karanja

Applicant

Peter Ndegwa Kamonde

Applicant

Nelius Wairimu Kiunjuri

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time to file an intended appeal after their previous appeal was struck out.
  2. 2 Whether the fact that this is a second application for extension of time is a bar to granting the orders sought.
  3. 3 Whether the reason for striking out the previous appeal precludes the applicants from seeking extension of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants acted without delay after their previous appeal was struck out and that the fact this was a second application for extension of time was not, by itself, a conclusive bar to granting the orders sought. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicants, noting that the applicants had already been penalized by the striking out of their previous appeal and that there was no evidence of delay or abuse of process. The court therefore allowed the application for extension of time, subject to specific timelines for filing and serving the notice of appeal and record of appeal, and awarded costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Application allowed.

Orders

  • Applicants to file notice of appeal within seven days of the date hereof and serve it on the respondent within four days from the date of its filing.
  • Applicants to lodge their record of appeal within fourteen days from the date of filing the notice of appeal.