[2006] KEHC 2099 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal out of time, both for the period following the original ruling and for the two months after withdrawal of the previous application. Additionally, the applicants did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2099 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Kahara Gage; Respondent: 1st Respondent
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 588 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Succession Estate Distribution
- 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
Samuel Kahara Gage
Applicant
1st Respondent
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the intended appeal has a fair chance of success warranting the grant of leave to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal out of time, both for the period following the original ruling and for the two months after withdrawal of the previous application. Additionally, the applicants did not present a draft memorandum of appeal or proposed grounds of appeal to demonstrate that the intended appeal had a fair chance of success. The absence of these critical elements led the court to conclude that the application lacked merit and should be dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The summons dated 25th August, 2005 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Succession Cause 588 of 1996
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PENINAH NJERI – DECEASED
RULING
Before me is an application by way of summons dated 25th August, 2005.
It seeks leave to file an appeal out of time against an order made on 18th July, 2003. It is supported by an affidavit sworn by Samuel Kahara Gage, the 1st Applicant, on 25th August, 2005.
The facts leading to this application are that instead of seeking leave of this court to file an appeal against the said order, the applicants filed a notice of appeal on 31st July, 2003. The appeal could not be filed within time in Court of Appeal after copies of proceedings and ruling were obtained. Then an application to file the appeal out of time was filed on 11th April, 2005 which came for hearing on 22nd June, 2005. The application was withdrawn so that the leave to appeal be obtained from this court.
This application then was filed on 25th August, 2006 after more than two months.
In fact the application is made after three years from the date the ruling was delivered and order made.
Apart from stating how the applicants made some mistakes, the delay of filing appeal before the Court of Appeal as well as the delay of more than two months from the date of withdrawal of the application is not explained. As a matter of fact, there is total silence on this issue, which rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, is very relevant factor to be considered by the court.
The application is also opposed on the grounds that the applicants are silent on the nature of grievances and the averments with reasons that the intended appeal has fair chance of success. These contentions are undisputable.
The bone of contention, as specified in paragraph 4 of the replying affidavit sworn by the 1st Respondent, is that the ruling of the court gave one acre from the estate property to a daughter of the deceased (sister to the 1st Applicant and Respondent) as per the family wishes after her marriage broke down.
It is trite law that while applying for the leave to appeal, the court should be satisfied that the proposed appeal shall have fair chance to succeed and that to enable the court to decide on that issue a draft memorandum of appeal or proposed grounds of appeal should be shown to the court.
I have nothing before me to determine the said issue.
Furthermore, instead of grabbing an opportunity to explain the issue of delay raised in the replying affidavit, the applicant in his further affidavit sworn on 12th January, 2006 stated in paragraph 7 thereof and I quote:
“7: that there has not been any inordinate delay in the matter and everything has been done expeditiously.”
I will be challenged if I find that even the delay of more than two months before filing this application is not explained. After taking a wrong channel, it was incumbent upon the applicant to file the necessary application without any further delay and the same is not done.
Overall there has been delay in the process culminating to this application which is not explained.
In the premises aforesaid, I do not see any merit in the application and order that the summons dated 25th August, 2005 be dismissed with costs.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 14th day of June, 2006.
K.H. RAWAL,
JUDGE
14. 6.06