[2017] KESC 20 (KLR)
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the applicant failed to provide a compelling or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the application for review and leave to appeal. The Court found that the reasons advanced by the applicant, namely the late procurement of the Court of Appeal ruling,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KESC 20 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Wilson Ngatia Karungaru (Suing as the personal representative of the estate of Geoffrey Karungaru Kabua); Respondent: Mbau Saw Mills; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Court Station
- Supreme Court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Application 7 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Application for Review and Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- MK Ibrahim, I Lenaola
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Review of Court of Appeal Decision
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Wilson Ngatia Karungaru (Suing as the personal representative of the estate of Geoffrey Karungaru Kabua)
Applicant
Mbau Saw Mills
Respondent
Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Application for Review and Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient justification for the inordinate delay in filing the application for review and leave to appeal.
- 2 Whether the principles for extension of time as laid down by the Supreme Court have been satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the applicant failed to provide a compelling or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the application for review and leave to appeal. The Court found that the reasons advanced by the applicant, namely the late procurement of the Court of Appeal ruling, were insufficient and did not meet the threshold established by the Supreme Court for extension of time. The application was therefore dismissed, as it fell short of the principles for extension of time as laid down in prior Supreme Court decisions. Costs were awarded to the respondents as costs follow the event.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The Notice of Motion Application dated 19th April, 2016 is hereby dismissed with costs as costs must follow the event.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Karungaru (Suing as the personal representative of the estate of Geoffrey Karungaru Kabua) v Mills & another (Application 7 of 2016) [2017] KESC 20 (KLR) (24 March 2017) (Ruling)
Wilson Ngatia Karungaru (Suing as the personal representative of the estate of Geoffrey Karungaru Kabua) v Mbau Saw Mills & another [2017] eKLR
Neutral citation: [2017] KESC 20 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Supreme Court of Kenya
Application 7 of 2016
MK Ibrahim & I Lenaola, SCJJ
March 24, 2017
Between
Wilson Ngatia Karungaru
Applicant
Suing as the personal representative of the estate of Geoffrey Karungaru Kabua
and
Mbau Saw Mills
1st Respondent
Hon. Attorney General
2nd Respondent
(Being an application for extension of time to file an application for Review of the Ruling of the Court of Appeal denying leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in Civil Appl. Sup. No. 2 of 2015 (Waki, Nambuye & Kiage JJ.A), delivered on 2nd December, 2015)
Ruling
1. Upon perusing the Notice of Motion application dated, 19th April, 2016, and filed on 20th April, 2016, for extension of time to file an application for review and for certification that the proposed appeal raises questions of general public interest and importance and for grant of leave to file a Notice of Appeal out of time; and
2. Upon reading the applicant’s affidavit sworn by Wilson Ngatia on 19th April, 2016, and the 1st respondent replying affidavit sworn by Eliud Matu Wamae on 23rd June, 2016; and
3. Upon considering the applicant’s argument that the Court of Appeal Ruling was procured later than anticipated thus delaying the process of lodging the review application, and the 1st respondent contending that the delay has not been explained and is in any event inordinate.
4. And having considered the application, by a unanimous decision of this Bench, we make the following Orders under Section 23(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Act, and Rule 21 and 23 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012(as amended).Orders Reasons
a. The Notice of Motion Application dated 19th April, 2016 is hereby dismissed with costs as costs must follow the event. a. No compelling reason has been presented to the Court as a justification for the inordinate delay.b. The application falls short of the principles for extension of time laid down in the case of Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others, Appl. No. 16 of 2014, as affirmed in Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya v. Kenya Airways Ltd & 3 Others, Appl. 50 of 2014 and Hassan Nyanje Charo v. Khatib Mwashetani & 3 Others [2014] eKLR.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBITHIS 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017. .....................................M.K.IBRAHIMJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.....................................I. LENAOLAJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURTI certify that this is a true copy of the originalREGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT