[2019] KECA 690 (KLR)

[2019] KECA 690 (KLR)

The court found that while the applicants failed to provide a certificate of delay or a letter requesting proceedings, there was evidence that the typed proceedings were certified and collected on 28th January, 2019. The explanation for the initial delay was deemed sufficient. However, the court noted that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KECA 690 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kennedy Ochieng Otieno; Applicant: Gradus Atieno Othim; Respondent: Elisaphan Omolo Nyasita
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 34 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Record of Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of time allowed with conditions.
Judges
JO Odek
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Delay Explanation, Typed Proceedings, Costs Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Appeals Process Delay Explanation Typed Proceedings Costs Orders

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kennedy Ochieng Otieno

Applicant

Gradus Atieno Othim

Applicant

Elisaphan Omolo Nyasita

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided a sufficient and plausible explanation for the delay in filing and serving the record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the application for extension of time was inordinate or excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the mistake or inadvertence of counsel should be visited upon the client in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicants failed to provide a certificate of delay or a letter requesting proceedings, there was evidence that the typed proceedings were certified and collected on 28th January, 2019. The explanation for the initial delay was deemed sufficient. However, the court noted that the subsequent delay of over two months before filing the application for extension of time was not adequately explained, as the only reason given was advice from Registry staff, which is not their responsibility. Despite this, the court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicants, considering that the delay was not inordinate and that the mistake of counsel should not be...

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time allowed with conditions.

Orders

  • Time to file and serve the record of appeal is extended; the applicant must file and serve the record within 14 days of the ruling date.
  • The respondent's costs in this application, assessed at Kshs.10,000, to be paid personally by counsel for the applicant before filing the record of appeal.