[2018] KEHC 6556 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 6556 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had made diligent efforts to obtain notice of the judgment and to secure the proceedings, but were unable to do so due to circumstances beyond their control. There was no evidence to refute the applicants' account, and the respondents did not oppose the application. The court held...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 6556 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kasyoka Ndivo & Morris Nguli Muli (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Willy Mutua Muli, Deceased); Respondent: Buzeki Enterprises Ltd; Respondent: African E. Auto Mobile Company
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitui
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 79 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
LN Mutende
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Timelines
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Leave to Appeal Procedural 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

Kasyoka Ndivo & Morris Nguli Muli (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Willy Mutua Muli, Deceased)

Applicant

Buzeki Enterprises Ltd

Respondent

African E. Auto Mobile Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are to blame for the delay in filing the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had made diligent efforts to obtain notice of the judgment and to secure the proceedings, but were unable to do so due to circumstances beyond their control. There was no evidence to refute the applicants' account, and the respondents did not oppose the application. The court held that the applicants were not to blame for the delay and had demonstrated sufficient cause as required by Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to grant leave to file the appeal out of time.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Applicants granted leave to file the Memorandum of Appeal within 15 days.