[2021] KEHC 9669 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, citing her lack of legal knowledge and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on court operations and access to documents. The respondent did not oppose the application, having failed to file a reply or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 9669 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jamilia Opanda Musa; Respondent: Christine Khalulu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 33 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Appeals From Lower Courts
- 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
Jamilia Opanda Musa
Applicant
Christine Khalulu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, citing her lack of legal knowledge and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on court operations and access to documents. The respondent did not oppose the application, having failed to file a reply or submissions. In the interests of justice, and given the unopposed nature of the application, the court exercised its discretion to allow the Motion and grant the applicant leave to file the appeal out of time.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The Motion dated 20th July 2020 is allowed as prayed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2020
JAMILIA OPANDA MUSA.......................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
CHRISTINE KHALULU......................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application for determination is the Motion, dated 20th July 2020. It is brought at the instance of the advocate for the applicant. The Motion seeks, in the main, leave to file appeal out of time and enlargement of time to file appeal.
2. The reasons given by the applicant for the delay in filing appeal are averred in the affidavit sworn in support of the Motion. The advocate avers that the applicant was a layperson, who did not understand the strict timelines that apply with respect to appeals from decisions of the lower court. It is also averred that the delay was compounded by the onset of the corona virus pandemic. It is averred further that the applicant was not able to get copies of the typed proceedings and judgment on time, as court services had been slowed down by the corona virus pandemic. It is stated that the delay should not be taken to mean that the applicant be denied her right to appeal.
3. When the application was placed before me on 21st July 202, I directed that the same be served. On 27th July 2020, Ms. Mburu appeared before me and informed me that she had served the Motion. Mr. Khayumbi was present for the respondent. He asked for more time to file a reply. On 29th September 2020 the parties told me that they had agreed to dispose of the application by way of written submissions.
4. I have closely perused the record before me. I have not seen a reply from the respondent. I have seen written submissions from the applicant, but none from the respondent. I shall take it that the Motion is unopposed.
5. In view of the above, and in the interests of justice, I shall allow the Motion dated 20th July 2020 as prayed. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGATHIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE