[2025] KECPT 161 (KLR)

[2025] KECPT 161 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient or convincing reasons for the delay in filing the appeal out of time. The applicant did not adequately explain why he did not respond to the claim in CTC.NO. E341 of 2024 or take action upon being served in June 2024, instead waiting two months...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KECPT 161 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Humphrey Imbwaga; Respondent: Besco Cooperative Sacco Society
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E010 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Surcharge Orders, Service of Process, Default Judgment
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Out of Time Surcharge Orders Service of Process Default Judgment

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

Humphrey Imbwaga

Applicant

Besco Cooperative Sacco Society

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Proceedings

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing an appeal out of time against the Surcharge Order.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal should grant a stay of proceedings in Tribunal Case No. CTC.NO. E341 of 2024 pending determination of this application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was properly served or notified of the Surcharge Order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient or convincing reasons for the delay in filing the appeal out of time. The applicant did not adequately explain why he did not respond to the claim in CTC.NO. E341 of 2024 or take action upon being served in June 2024, instead waiting two months before seeking leave to appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the draft Memorandum of Appeal raised issues of process that would more appropriately be addressed through judicial review in the High Court, not before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal was not persuaded to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant, and the application was dismissed despite being unopposed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 2.8.2024 is dismissed.
  • File ordered as closed.