[1999] KECA 106 (KLR)

[1999] KECA 106 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for extension of time. The purported reliance on the Certificate of Delay was not credible, as the certificate in the record was undated, unsigned, and uncertified, and the advocate's own...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] KECA 106 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Gerrit Andrew Walterfung Engineering Ltd; Applicant: Henry Jjumba; Respondent: David Ochieng
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Application 312 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Default Judgment, Ex Parte Judgment, Discretion of Court
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Default Judgment Ex Parte Judgment Discretion of Court

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

Gerrit Andrew Walterfung Engineering Ltd

Applicant

Henry Jjumba

Applicant

David Ochieng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the application for extension of time to lodge the record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to extend time for filing the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for extension of time. The purported reliance on the Certificate of Delay was not credible, as the certificate in the record was undated, unsigned, and uncertified, and the advocate's own affidavit indicated he had received it much earlier. Additionally, there were unexplained lapses between the dates of the application, the supporting affidavit, and the actual filing. In the absence of a good explanation for the inordinate delay, the court declined to exercise its discretion under rule 4 to extend the time for lodging the record of appeal and dismissed the application...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for extension of time to lodge the record of appeal is dismissed with costs.