[2001] KECA 168 (KLR)

[2001] KECA 168 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that the single Judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to grant an extension of time to file and serve the notice and record of appeal. The applicant's delay in lodging the appeal, nearly four years, was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. The letter requesting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KECA 168 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Kariuki Njoroge; Respondent: Stephen Rurigi Njoroge
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 67 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Reference Against Refusal of Extension of Time by Single Judge
Outcome
reference dismissed with costs
Judges
AB Shah
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Exercise of Discretion, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Exercise of Discretion Appeals Process

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Kariuki Njoroge

Applicant

Stephen Rurigi Njoroge

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Reference Against Refusal of Extension of Time by Single Judge

  1. 1 Whether the single Judge properly exercised discretion in refusing to grant extension of time to file and serve notice and record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in lodging the appeal was sufficiently explained to warrant extension of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the single Judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to grant an extension of time to file and serve the notice and record of appeal. The applicant's delay in lodging the appeal, nearly four years, was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. The letter requesting proceedings was sent six months late and not copied to the respondent, rendering it ineffective. Furthermore, the applicant failed to obtain a certificate of delay to substantiate the claim that the delay was attributable to the court registry. The court found no error, misdirection, or lack of consideration by the single Judge and dismissed the reference with costs.

Court Disposition

reference dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The reference is dismissed with costs to the respondent.