[2021] KEELRC 2230 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 2230 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, which was only one day and occasioned by late supply of the ruling. The delay was not inordinate or intentional. The respondents failed to comply with the court's order to file their response in time, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 2230 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Julia Karwirwa Benson; Respondent: Consolidated Bank (K) Ltd; Respondent: Samwel Mwenda Mbogori; Respondent: Muga Auctioneers & General Merchants
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 2B of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed; extension of time granted.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals, Memorandum of Appeal, Court Orders, Costs, Default of Response
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Appeals Memorandum of Appeal Court Orders Costs Default of Response

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

Julia Karwirwa Benson

Applicant

Consolidated Bank (K) Ltd

Respondent

Samwel Mwenda Mbogori

Respondent

Muga Auctioneers & General Merchants

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to file an appeal against the ruling of the lower court.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the application is unopposed due to the respondents' failure to comply with court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, which was only one day and occasioned by late supply of the ruling. The delay was not inordinate or intentional. The respondents failed to comply with the court's order to file their response in time, and their late response was disregarded. As a result, the application was unopposed. The court exercised its discretion to grant the extension of time, finding the application merited. Leave was granted to the applicant to file and serve the memorandum of appeal within 14 days, failing which the orders would lapse. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; extension of time granted.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to file and serve the memorandum of appeal within 14 days from the date of delivery of this judgment, failing which the orders shall lapse.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of this suit.