[2023] KEELC 20536 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a plausible or adequate explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, particularly regarding the nature and extent of his follow-up with his previous advocate over a period of six months. The court held that the delay was not sufficiently explained and,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 20536 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: James Mbochi Igamba; Defendant: Esther Nyamuiru Muchiri
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 1352 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the defendant
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Discretion of Court, Burden of Explanation for Delay
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
James Mbochi Igamba
Plaintiff
Esther Nyamuiru Muchiri
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing an appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant leave to appeal out of time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a plausible or adequate explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, particularly regarding the nature and extent of his follow-up with his previous advocate over a period of six months. The court held that the delay was not sufficiently explained and, therefore, the plaintiff did not meet the threshold for the exercise of the court's discretion to extend time. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the defendant
Orders
- The application dated 27.1.2023 is dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Igamba v Muchiri (Environment & Land Case 1352 of 2016) [2023] KEELC 20536 (KLR) (5 October 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 20536 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case 1352 of 2016
LN Mbugua, J
October 5, 2023
Between
James Mbochi Igamba
Plaintiff
and
Esther Nyamuiru Muchiri
Defendant
Ruling
1. Before me is the plaintiff’s application dated 27. 1.2023 seeking leave to appeal out of time against the judgment delivered by this court on 28. 7.2022. The plaintiff avers that he was aggrieved by the said ruling and he instructed his advocates to lodge an appeal but they didn’t. He now has a new advocate who advised him that the court has powers to allow him to lodge an appeal.
2. In opposition to the application, the defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 17. 4.2023 as well as a Replying Affidavit dated 23. 6.2023 where she avers that the reason for the delay in filing the appeal has not been adequately explained. Thus she will be greatly prejudiced if the application is allowed. She avers that she has refunded back all the deposit paid by the plaintiff.
3. The parties were directed to file their submissions by 10. 8.2023, but there was no compliance with the said directions.
4. The provisions of Section 7 of the Appellate jurisdiction Act empowers this court to extend time to lodge a notice to appeal, and the Court has unfettered discretion in granting leave to file such an Appeal out of time. However there must be some material placed before the court to enable its discretion to be so exercised. The applicant seeking enlargement of time to file an appeal must show good cause for doing so.
5. In the case of Fahim Yasin Twaha v Timamy Issa Abdalla & 2others [2015] eKLR, the court had this to say on the issue of extension of time to appeal.“Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party, at the discretion of the Court. A party who seeks extension of time has the burden of laying a basis, to the satisfaction of the Court; Whether the Court should exercise the discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case- to- case basis”.
6. The plaintiff has not given any plausible account of the nature and extent of the follow up he was undertaking with his erstwhile advocate for a period of half a year. It follows that the delay in filing the appeal has not been adequately explained. The application dated 27. 1.2023 is hereby dismissed with costs to the defendant.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Ndungu for PlaintiffGichamba for Defendant