[2011] KECA 381 (KLR)

[2011] KECA 381 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, as they only became aware of the ruling after the time for filing the notice of appeal had lapsed. The application for extension was filed promptly after they learned of the ruling. There was no evidence from the respondents to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] KECA 381 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Henry Gatura; Applicant: Samuel Njoroge; Applicant: Peter Waichungo; Applicant: Rofasi Musasula; Respondent: Charles Ogina; Respondent: Joseph Kimani Kiarie; Respondent: Alfred W. Mocho; Respondent: Daniel Mathenge Ngugi; Respondent: Zipora Wanja Mathenge
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 275 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
CA Otieno
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Court Discretion, Delay Explanation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Court Discretion Delay Explanation

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

Henry Gatura

Applicant

Samuel Njoroge

Applicant

Peter Waichungo

Applicant

Rofasi Musasula

Applicant

Charles Ogina

Respondent

Joseph Kimani Kiarie

Respondent

Alfred W. Mocho

Respondent

Daniel Mathenge Ngugi

Respondent

Zipora Wanja Mathenge

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing the notice of appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the extension is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, as they only became aware of the ruling after the time for filing the notice of appeal had lapsed. The application for extension was filed promptly after they learned of the ruling. There was no evidence from the respondents to challenge the explanation or to show that they would suffer prejudice if the extension was granted. The court therefore exercised its discretion in favour of the applicants and allowed the extension of time to file the notice of appeal.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Time for filing notice of appeal is extended; notice of appeal may be filed within fourteen days from the date of this ruling.
  • Costs in the intended appeal.