[2021] KEELC 4348 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 4348 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants filed their Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time under Rule 75(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and that it was not necessary to obtain leave before lodging the Notice of Appeal as per Rule 74(5). However, leave to appeal was required and should have been sought within...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 4348 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Getrude Chao Waita; Plaintiff: Stephen Mbaki Waita (legal Representative of the Estate of Francis Waita Mbaki); Defendant: Agnes Wamaitha Kibuchi; Defendant: Edith Wangari Kanyeki
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 84 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Enlargement of Time, Preliminary Objection, Notice of Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Enlargement of Time Preliminary Objection Notice of Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Getrude Chao Waita

Plaintiff

Stephen Mbaki Waita (legal Representative of the Estate of Francis Waita Mbaki)

Plaintiff

Agnes Wamaitha Kibuchi

Defendant

Edith Wangari Kanyeki

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to appeal out of time against a ruling on a preliminary objection that struck out their suit.
  2. 2 Whether the Notice of Appeal filed by the applicants was properly on record despite not seeking leave to appeal within the prescribed period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants filed their Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time under Rule 75(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and that it was not necessary to obtain leave before lodging the Notice of Appeal as per Rule 74(5). However, leave to appeal was required and should have been sought within fourteen days of the ruling, which the applicants failed to do. The court considered the applicants' explanation that COVID-19 restrictions and the electronic delivery of the ruling prevented timely application for leave. Recognizing the unprecedented challenges posed by the pandemic and the absence of abuse of court process, the court exercised its discretion to enlarge time and...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Time for seeking leave to appeal is enlarged.
  • Leave to appeal the ruling is granted to the applicants.