[2020] KEELC 2922 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 2922 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed period, as no request for proceedings was made after judgment. The explanation for the delay, namely lack of funds to pay instruction fees, was deemed insufficient and appeared to be an afterthought. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 2922 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Grace Achieng Odhiambo; Defendant: Alex Onyango Ombago (Suing as the admin & personal representative of the estate of Alexander Okech & Jacob Joseph Ombago)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
TM Olando
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Out of Time, Delay in Filing, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Appeals Out of Time Delay in Filing Land Disputes

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Achieng Odhiambo

Applicant

Alex Onyango Ombago (Suing as the admin & personal representative of the estate of Alexander Okech & Jacob Joseph Ombago)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed period.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the appeal is inordinate and inexcusable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed period, as no request for proceedings was made after judgment. The explanation for the delay, namely lack of funds to pay instruction fees, was deemed insufficient and appeared to be an afterthought. The court further held that the applicant did not show that the intended appeal had merit or that the respondent would not be prejudiced by the delay. Consequently, the application for extension of time to appeal was dismissed as the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and no adequate reasons were provided.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed with costs to the respondent.