[2020] KEHC 3985 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 3985 (KLR)

The court found that the delay between the delivery of the impugned ruling and the filing of the application for leave to appeal out of time was neither inordinate nor unreasonable. The applicant's explanation that his advocate erroneously filed a notice of appeal instead of a memorandum of appeal was accepted as a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 3985 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Onyancha (Suing on behalf of the estate of Rhoda Kemunto Onyancha-Deceased); Respondent: Simon Wanjiru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 55 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
LM Njuguna
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Extension of Time, Procedural Noncompliance
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Out of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Extension of Time Procedural Noncompliance

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Onyancha (Suing on behalf of the estate of Rhoda Kemunto Onyancha-Deceased)

Applicant

Simon Wanjiru

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant leave to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate or unreasonable.
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal raises arguable grounds.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay between the delivery of the impugned ruling and the filing of the application for leave to appeal out of time was neither inordinate nor unreasonable. The applicant's explanation that his advocate erroneously filed a notice of appeal instead of a memorandum of appeal was accepted as a reasonable and excusable mistake, particularly since the rules do not require a notice of appeal for appeals to the High Court. The court further determined that the draft memorandum of appeal disclosed arguable grounds, and that no prejudice would be occasioned to the respondent by granting leave. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The applicant shall file and serve his memorandum of appeal within 14 days from the date of the ruling and thereafter file the record of appeal within 30 days from the date of the ruling. The appeal to be prosecuted within 90 days starting from 15/09/2020.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.