[2017] KEHC 4892 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 4892 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. There was no documentary evidence to show that the applicant applied for proceedings on the date alleged, nor was there any annexure of the intended memorandum of appeal. The court held that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 4892 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Japhet Ndagara Mugambi; Respondent: Mark Mucee Munyambu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
23 February 2017
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 62 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
LN Mbugua
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Out of Time, Sufficient Cause, Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Out of Time Sufficient Cause Affidavit Evidence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Japhet Ndagara Mugambi

Applicant

Mark Mucee Munyambu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of typed proceedings is a valid reason for delay in filing the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. There was no documentary evidence to show that the applicant applied for proceedings on the date alleged, nor was there any annexure of the intended memorandum of appeal. The court held that the applicant did not require typed proceedings to file an appeal and could have filed the appeal while awaiting the proceedings. The absence of credible evidence and the reference to non-existent documents indicated a lack of seriousness and candour on the part of the applicant. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for extension of time.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for extension of time to file appeal out of time is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.