[2014] KEHC 3948 (KLR)
The court found that the application for enlargement of time was filed two years after the decision in question, constituting an inordinate delay. The applicant failed to provide a cogent or significant explanation for the delay, despite being represented by counsel throughout. The court held that while it has the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 3948 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Gerald O. Kimanga t/a Kimanga & Co. Advocate; Applicant: Karmjit Kaur Rehal
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 153 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Enlargement of Time, Taxation of Costs, Delay in Filing, Court Discretion
- 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
Gerald O. Kimanga t/a Kimanga & Co. Advocate
Respondent
Karmjit Kaur Rehal
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the inordinate delay in seeking enlargement of time for the Taxing Master to give reasons on the decision of 4-6-2012.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant the enlargement of time sought by the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for enlargement of time was filed two years after the decision in question, constituting an inordinate delay. The applicant failed to provide a cogent or significant explanation for the delay, despite being represented by counsel throughout. The court held that while it has the power to grant enlargement of time, the circumstances of this case did not justify the exercise of such discretion in favour of the applicant. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 11-12-2013 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 153 OF 2011
GERALD O. KIMANGA T/A KIMANGA & CO. ADVOCATE........RESPONDENT
VERSUS
KARMJIT KAUR REHAL..............................................................APPLICANT
R U L I N G
The applicant's application dated 11-12-2013 prays for enlargement of time so that the Taxing Master can give reasons on the decision of 4-6-2012. The affidavit dated 11-12-2013 by the applicant explains why the delays.
The respondent has filed grounds of opposition dated 2-4-2014. It has been argued that the said application is belated and that all along the applicant was well represented.
I have perused the application and I shall not hesitate to simply dismiss it for the reason that the same has been filed way after the decision was made. The two year period is simply an inordinate delay. No significant reasons have been offered by the applicant who all along was well represented by a counsel. Although this court is empowered to grant such an order the circumstances herein militates against the applicant. No cogent explanation has been given why the delay.
The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kisumu this 30th day of June, 2014.
H.K. CHEMITEI JUDGE