[1997] KECA 144 (KLR)

[1997] KECA 144 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any explanation for the inordinate delay of 20 months in seeking an extension of time to file a fresh notice and record of appeal. Furthermore, the court noted that the suit land, which was the subject of the dispute, had already been transferred to a third party...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1997] KECA 144 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Hellen Kathuka M'Ikiara; Respondent: Esther Mboroki; Respondent: Mboroki
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 159 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Struck Out, Delay in Filing, Status of Suit Land
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Struck Out Delay in Filing Status of Suit Land

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hellen Kathuka M'Ikiara

Appellant

Esther Mboroki

Respondent

Mboroki

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the 20-month delay in seeking extension of time to file a fresh notice and record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether granting the extension would serve any practical purpose given the suit land has already been transferred to a third party.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any explanation for the inordinate delay of 20 months in seeking an extension of time to file a fresh notice and record of appeal. Furthermore, the court noted that the suit land, which was the subject of the dispute, had already been transferred to a third party who was not a party to the application. As a result, granting the extension would serve no practical purpose and would be an exercise in futility. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for extension of time is dismissed with costs.