Eshitemi & another v Focus Container Company Ltd & another (Miscellaneous Civil Application E231 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 5180 (KLR) (24 April 2026) (Ruling)

Eshitemi & another v Focus Container Company Ltd & another (Miscellaneous Civil Application E231 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 5180 (KLR) (24 April 2026) (Ruling)

Applicants did not demonstrate good and sufficient cause for delay as they did not require certified copies of the ruling or proceedings to file the appeal, nor did they apply for a certified copy of the order appealed from, which is mandatory. Thus, extension of time is not warranted.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 5180 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Hamisi Mwalumu Eshitemi; Applicant: Caroline Musungu Titako; Respondent: Focus Container Company Ltd; Respondent: Mohamed Abdi
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
24 April 2026
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E231 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals, Certified Copies, Civil Procedure Rules
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Certified Copies Civil Procedure Rules

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamisi Mwalumu Eshitemi

Applicant

Caroline Musungu Titako

Applicant

Focus Container Company Ltd

Respondent

Mohamed Abdi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good and sufficient cause for extension of time to file an appeal under section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants did not demonstrate good and sufficient cause for delay as they did not require certified copies of the ruling or proceedings to file the appeal, nor did they apply for a certified copy of the order appealed from, which is mandatory. Thus, extension of time is not warranted.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • application for extension of time to file appeal is dismissed
  • costs awarded to respondents