[2015] KEELRC 992 (KLR)
The court found that while there may have been confusion regarding the actual date of delivery of the ruling, the applicant's explanation for the delay was reasonable and the application was not inordinately late. The court held that granting leave to file an appeal out of time would not occasion the respondent any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 992 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: James Heather-Hayes; Respondent: African Medical and Research Foundation (AMREF)
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 626 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed with conditions
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Procedural Delay, Court Record Accuracy
- 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 Heather-Hayes
Applicant
African Medical and Research Foundation (AMREF)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the application is inordinate and prejudicial to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while there may have been confusion regarding the actual date of delivery of the ruling, the applicant's explanation for the delay was reasonable and the application was not inordinately late. The court held that granting leave to file an appeal out of time would not occasion the respondent any prejudice that could not be compensated by costs. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application, directing the applicant to file the Notice of Appeal within 7 days and the record of appeal within 60 days from the date of the ruling, with costs awarded to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application allowed with conditions
Orders
- The applicant shall file Notice of Appeal within 7 days of this ruling.
- The applicant shall file a record of Appeal within 60 days of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 626 OF 2013
JAMES HEATHER-HAYES………………….................……………….….. CLAIMANT
VERSUS
AFRICAN MEDICAL AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION (AMREF)……RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant in this matter seeks extention of time to file a Notice of Appeal against ruling and orders of Hon. Justice Marete delivered on 18th June, 2014.
2. The application is brought on the ground that judgment was delivered in the absence of Counsel for both parties and on a date not specified to them. According to the applicant, there was genuine confusion as to whether and when the ruling sought to be appealed from was delivered leading to the expiry of the mandatory period required for the filing of the Notice of Appeal.
3. The applicant further stated that there was no undue delay in presenting the application and that no prejudice would be suffered by the respondent if the orders sought were granted.
4. The respondent opposed the application on the main that the Court record set out accurately when the ruling was delivered and that the claimant could not alter or vary the Court record. The respondent further averred that the application was based on unsubstantiated, false and contradicting statements.
5. This Court will not delve into the merits and demerits of Hon. Justice Marete’s ruling. All the applicant needs to satisfy the Court at this stage is whether the delay in filing the application has been reasonably explained and that the application has not been brought inordinately late.
6. On 17th March, 2014, Justice Marete ordered that the ruling herein would be delivered on 18th June, 2014 at 2. 30p.m.
7. On the appointed date, only the Counsel for the respondent was recorded to have appeared. The ruling was however read despite the absence of Counsel for the applicant.
8. In the affidavit in support of the present application, Counsel depones that he was available on the material date, to wit 18th June, 2014 but was informed by the Court Clerk that the ruling was not ready. He consequently wrote a letter on 19th June, 2014 seeking to know when the ruling would be delivered but came to learn that the ruling was delivered as scheduled on 18th June, 2014 at 2. 30p.m.
9. The applicant, for what is worth intend to appeal against the ruling of the Court. There may have been confusion or not when the ruling was actually delivered however allowing an applicant leave to file an appeal out of time will not occasion the respondent any prejudice which cannot be compensated by way of costs.
10. This application may be regarded late by the respondent however it does not qualify to be termed as inordinately late.
11. In the circumstances I will allow the application to the extent that the applicant shall file Notice of Appeal within 7 days of this ruling and a record of Appeal within 60 days of this ruling.
12. The respondent shall have costs of the application.
Dated at Nairobi this 7th day of May 2015
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
Delivered this 7th day of May 2015
In the presence of:-
……………………………………………………………for the Claimant and
………………………………………………………………for the Respondent.
Abuodha J. N.
Judge