[2020] KEHC 7981 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a candid and satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of over three years in filing the application to extend time for prosecuting the objection. The applicant did not specify when she became aware of the court's orders, nor did she or her advocate attend...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 7981 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mary Runyanyi Ochieng; Respondent: Priscila Vuguta Kamaliki
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 186 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Extend Time for Prosecution of Objection
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- CM Njagi
- Legal Topics
- Succession, Revocation of Grant, Extension of Time
- 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
Mary Runyanyi Ochieng
Applicant
Priscila Vuguta Kamaliki
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Extend Time for Prosecution of Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should extend time for the applicant to prosecute her notice of motion for revocation of grant.
- 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in prosecuting the objection.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a candid and satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of over three years in filing the application to extend time for prosecuting the objection. The applicant did not specify when she became aware of the court's orders, nor did she or her advocate attend court to prosecute the application. The court held that unexplained delay and lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter are fatal to the application. Consequently, the application for extension of time was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 30/4/2019 is dismissed with costs to the petitioner/respondent.
- 30 days right of appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 186 OF 2004
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF FRANCIS KALIKI (DECEASED)
AND
MARY RUNYANYI OCHIENG..........................OBJECTOR/APPLICANT
VERSUS
PRISCILA VUGUTA KAMALIKI...............PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The objector/applicant has filed an application dated 30th April, 2019 seeking for orders:-
(1) - spent
(2) That the honourable court be pleased to extend the time within which the objector/applicant ought to have prosecuted her notice of motion dated 3rd December, 2005, seeking orders for revocation of the grant of letters of administration issued to the petitioner/respondent on 12th July, 2003 in terms of the orders of Hon. Lady Justice Ruth Sitati on 21st January, 2016.
(3) That the initial ninety (90) days period within which the said application of 3rd December, 2003 ought to have been prosecuted in terms of the court’s ruling of 21st January, 2016 be extended upon terms which the honourable court may be pleased to.
2. The application was premised on the grounds on the face of the application and supported by the affidavit of the applicant sworn on 30/4/2019.
3. The application was opposed by the petitioner/respondent vide her replying affidavit sworn on 27th June, 2019.
4. The application came up for hearing on 14/10/2019. The advocates for the applicant, Thomas N. Maosa, did not turn up to prosecute the application. The advocate for the respondent Mr. Mukele thereupon asked the court to dismiss the application on the grounds that the hearing date had been taken by the advocate for the objector/applicant and yet he had failed to turn up in court to prosecute the application.
5. On the 21/1/2016 this court while presided over by Sitati J. made orders that the applicant set down the objection for full hearing within 90 days failing which the objection stood dismissed with costs to the petitioner/respondent. The applicant did not comply with the orders of the court and the objection stood dismissed at the expiry of the 90 days. The instant application seeks to extend the granted period of 90 days. The applicant says that she had no knowledge of the directions given by the court vide the ruling dated 21/1/2016 as her then advocate Mr. Kidiavai did not communicate to her on the same.
6. Neither the applicant nor her advocate turned up to prosecute the application dated 30/4/2019. The said application was filed after a period of more than 3 years after the delivery of the ruling dated 21/1/2016. In between the applicant had filed an application dated 15/2/2019. If her lawyer did not inform her of the directions of the court given on 21/1/2016, the applicant has not stated when she came to learn of the said orders. The applicant is not candid to the court. There was thereby unexplained inordinate delay in the filing of the application. This coupled with the fact that the appellant did not turn up to prosecute her application, the same is dismissed with costs to the petitioner/respondent.
Delivered, dated and signed in open court at Kakamega this 29th day of January, 2020.
J. NJAGI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
No appearance for objector/applicant
Mr. Mukele for petitioner/respondent
Objector/applicant - absent
Petitioner/respondent - present
Court Assistant - Polycap
30 days right of appeal.