[2021] KEELC 4186 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 4186 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, supported by documentary evidence including a certificate of delay and a receipt for payment for the judgment. The applicant demonstrated that the delay was occasioned by late provision of proceedings and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 4186 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Julius Thuranira Laichena; Respondent: Mwontune M’Laichena; Respondent: John Nthiringa Laichena; Respondent: M’Marimba M’Ithewa; Respondent: Joseph Muthaa M’Muthuri; Respondent: Joshua Mweti M’Muthuri; Respondent: Joel Kilela Rukanga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Outcome
application allowed with conditions
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Appeals Process, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Out of Time Appeals Process Judicial Discretion

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius Thuranira Laichena

Applicant

Mwontune M’Laichena

Respondent

John Nthiringa Laichena

Respondent

M’Marimba M’Ithewa

Respondent

Joseph Muthaa M’Muthuri

Respondent

Joshua Mweti M’Muthuri

Respondent

Joel Kilela Rukanga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was adequately explained.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the application is allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, supported by documentary evidence including a certificate of delay and a receipt for payment for the judgment. The applicant demonstrated that the delay was occasioned by late provision of proceedings and judgment, and that he acted promptly upon receipt. The initial appeal was withdrawn due to procedural error, not lack of diligence. The court held that the applicant had laid a sufficient basis for extension of time, and that the respondents would not suffer undue prejudice as a result. The court exercised its discretion to allow the application, subject to conditions regarding the...

Court Disposition

application allowed with conditions

Orders

  • The memorandum of appeal is to be filed and served within 14 days.
  • The applicant is to meet the costs of the present application/suit.