[2007] KEHC 2992 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 2992 (KLR)

The court found that the delay of nearly five years in seeking leave to appeal was inordinate and inexcusable. The applicant's explanation, attributing the delay to the previous advocate's alleged laxity, was not supported by any evidence such as a letter of protest or complaint to the advocate. The applicant failed to demonstrate any diligence in pursuing his rights after the judgment, while the respondents had been active and diligent in enforcing theirs. The court held that to excuse such delay merely on the basis of blaming counsel would set a dangerous precedent and encourage indolence. The application was therefore dismissed as the delay and the explanation for it were untenable,...

Citation
[2007] KEHC 2992 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Gerald Mwirigi M’Mbui; Respondent: M’Mbui Mwirichia; Respondent: Douglas Meme
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
7 February 2007
Case Number
? 102 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Judges
I Lenaola
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Out of Time, Delay and Laches, Advocate Negligence, Land Disputes
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Appeals Out of Time Delay and Laches Advocate Negligence Land Disputes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerald Mwirigi M’Mbui

Applicant

M’Mbui Mwirichia

Respondent

Douglas Meme

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time against the judgment in CMCC 461/99 (Meru).
  2. 2 Whether the delay of nearly five years in filing the appeal is excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the explanation for the delay, namely advocate's alleged laxity, is plausible and sufficient.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay of nearly five years in seeking leave to appeal was inordinate and inexcusable. The applicant's explanation, attributing the delay to the previous advocate's alleged laxity, was not supported by any evidence such as a letter of protest or complaint to the advocate. The applicant failed to demonstrate any diligence in pursuing his rights after the judgment, while the respondents had been active and diligent in enforcing theirs. The court held that to excuse such delay merely on the basis of blaming counsel would set a dangerous precedent and encourage indolence. The application was therefore dismissed as the delay and the explanation for it were untenable,...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The application dated 22.6.2006 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.