[2024] KEELC 432 (KLR)
The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was not occasioned by the applicant but by the late availability of court proceedings, which were only ready for collection after the expiry of the statutory period for appeal. The applicant acted promptly upon learning from counsel that an application for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 432 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Paul Hirbo Isatu; Respondent: Shalle Ibrahim; Respondent: Adam Koje; Respondent: Boku Boda; Respondent: Mary Philip; Respondent: Assesey Development Group
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Isiolo
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 002 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time to File Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- PM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Delay Caused by Court, Service of Documents
- 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
Paul Hirbo Isatu
Applicant
Shalle Ibrahim
Respondent
Adam Koje
Respondent
Boku Boda
Respondent
Mary Philip
Respondent
Assesey Development Group
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time to File Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted enlargement of time to file an appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was occasioned by the applicant or by the court.
- 3 Whether the respondents would be prejudiced by the grant of leave to appeal out of time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was not occasioned by the applicant but by the late availability of court proceedings, which were only ready for collection after the expiry of the statutory period for appeal. The applicant acted promptly upon learning from counsel that an application for enlargement of time was possible. There was no opposition from the respondents, and the court was satisfied that no prejudice would be occasioned to them by granting the application. In the interests of justice, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for enlargement of time to file the appeal.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The application for enlargement of time to file the appeal is allowed with costs to abide the outcome of the intended appeal.
- The applicant shall serve the suit documents and a record of appeal upon the respondents within 30 days of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Isatu v Ibrahim & 4 others (Environment and Land Appeal 002 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 432 (KLR) (5 February 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 432 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Isiolo
Environment and Land Appeal 002 of 2021
PM Njoroge, J
February 5, 2024
Between
Paul Hirbo Isatu
Applicant
and
Shalle Ibrahim
1st Respondent
Adam Koje
2nd Respondent
Boku Boda
3rd Respondent
Mary Philip
4th Respondent
Assesey Development Group
5th Respondent
Ruling
1. This application is dated December 16, 2022. The application seeks orders;1. That the time within which the Applicants should file their appeal be enlarged.2. That the costs of this application abide the outcome of the appeal.
2. The application has the following grounds;1. That the Lower court judgment was delivered on April 25, 2022 and proceedings were thereafter applied for and paid for on April 27, 2022. 2.That it was not until August 1, 2022 when the proceedings were ready for collection long after the thirty (30) day period had lapsed.3. That the applicant herein being lay persons then proceeded under the assumption that because the time had lapsed, their appeal was effectively locked out.4. That it was late in December this year that the applicant, learnt from his advocate that they could actually file an application for enlargement of time especially owing to the fact that the delay was not occasioned by the applicant but by the court.5. That the applicant instantly appointed the counsel on record on December 15, 2022 to file this instant application without further delay.6. That the intended appeal is not frivolous and has high chance of success.7. That it is in the interests of justice that the applicant be allowed to appeal against the said judgment.8. That the respondents will not be prejudiced if the said leave is granted.
3. Despite evidence that the respondents had been served, they did not come to court.Miss Nyasani told the court that as there was no indication that the respondent opposed the application, she asked the court to allow the application. I agree.
4. In the circumstance, the following orders are issued:a.The application is allowed with costs to abide the outcome of the intended appeal.b.The applicant should serve the suit documents and a record of appeal upon the respondents within 30 days of today.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT ISIOLO THIS 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024In the presence of:Court assistant: RahmaHON. JUSTICE P.M NJOROGEJUDGE