[1997] KECA 197 (KLR)

[1997] KECA 197 (KLR)

The court found that although the applicant failed to serve the respondents with a copy of the application for proceedings and ruling, which would have entitled him to the benefit of the proviso to rule 81(1), the respondents did not seriously oppose the application. Exercising its discretion under rule 4 of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1997] KECA 197 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Githinji Wangondu; Respondent: Raphael Gitau Njau and 5 others
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 107 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
application granted
Judges
JE Gicheru
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Court of Appeal Rules
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Court of Appeal Rules

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Githinji Wangondu

Applicant

Raphael Gitau Njau and 5 others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time to file an appeal despite failing to serve the respondents with a copy of the application for proceedings and ruling.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in lodging the intended appeal was inordinate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicant failed to serve the respondents with a copy of the application for proceedings and ruling, which would have entitled him to the benefit of the proviso to rule 81(1), the respondents did not seriously oppose the application. Exercising its discretion under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the court determined that the interests of justice would be served by granting a limited extension of time for the applicant to lodge the intended appeal. The court considered the length of the delay and the procedural lapse but ultimately allowed the application, extending the time for filing the appeal by 15 days from the date of the ruling.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Time for lodging the intended appeal to the Court of Appeal is extended by 15 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondents in any event.