[1986] KECA 58 (KLR)

[1986] KECA 58 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any explanation or affidavit accounting for the delay in filing the record of appeal or for the late filing of the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was filed out of time, and no application was made to regularize this defect. In the absence of any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1986] KECA 58 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joshua Chege Wanyoike; Respondent: James Thiga Mukuro
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 136 of 1986
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Serve Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
JM Gachuhi
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Service of Record of Appeal, Appeal Timelines
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Service of Record of Appeal Appeal Timelines

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joshua Chege Wanyoike

Applicant

James Thiga Mukuro

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Serve Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time to serve the record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the notice of appeal was filed within the prescribed time limits.
  3. 3 Whether sufficient cause for delay has been demonstrated by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any explanation or affidavit accounting for the delay in filing the record of appeal or for the late filing of the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was filed out of time, and no application was made to regularize this defect. In the absence of any explanation or response from the applicant, the court had no basis to exercise its discretion in favour of granting an extension of time. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

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