[2012] KECA 67 (KLR)

[2012] KECA 67 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal and the subsequent application for extension of time. The applicant took about twenty days after receiving the judgment to lodge the notice of appeal, and a further four months to file the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KECA 67 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: James Twara Musiori t/a Premium Service Company; Respondent: Elphas Odiwuor Omondi
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 16 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Court of Appeal Rules, Delay in Filing, Discretionary Powers
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Court of Appeal Rules Delay in Filing Discretionary Powers

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

James Twara Musiori t/a Premium Service Company

Applicant

Elphas Odiwuor Omondi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the notice and record of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated the existence of an arguable appeal to justify the court's discretion to extend time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal and the subsequent application for extension of time. The applicant took about twenty days after receiving the judgment to lodge the notice of appeal, and a further four months to file the application for extension, which the court deemed inordinate and inadequately explained. The applicant's residence in the United States was not accepted as a valid excuse given modern communication technology. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate the existence of an arguable appeal, either in the supporting affidavit or by providing a draft memorandum of appeal....

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 14th December, 2011 is dismissed with costs.