[2022] KECA 671 (KLR)

[2022] KECA 671 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for extension of time. Although the respondent cited a system failure on 9th September 2021, the application was stamped on 10th September 2021, and the respondent was aware of this on that date....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KECA 671 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: HFC Limited; Respondent: Peter Adams Ludaava
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E062 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice of Motion to Strike Out Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the appellant
Judges
P Nyamweya
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Court of Appeal Rules, Discretionary Powers, Delay Explanation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Court of Appeal Rules Discretionary Powers 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HFC Limited

Appellant

Peter Adams Ludaava

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice of Motion to Strike Out Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the application for extension of time.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing the notice of motion to strike out the record of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for extension of time. Although the respondent cited a system failure on 9th September 2021, the application was stamped on 10th September 2021, and the respondent was aware of this on that date. However, the respondent waited over four months to file the instant application for extension of time without providing any explanation for this prolonged delay. The court held that the principles governing the exercise of discretion for extension of time require that each period of delay be explained, and the respondent did not meet this threshold. The court also noted the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the appellant

Orders

  • The respondent's Notice of Motion dated 28th January 2022 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the appellant.