[1999] KECA 12 (KLR)

[1999] KECA 12 (KLR)

The court found that, after excluding the supplementary affidavit for non-compliance with procedural rules, the applicant's remaining affidavit did not provide any explanation for the delay in filing the record of appeal. The absence of a satisfactory explanation meant that the applicant failed to demonstrate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] KECA 12 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya National Assurance Co. Ltd; Respondent: Joseph M. Mbasu
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 38 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
JE Gicheru
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Court of Appeal Rules
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Court of Appeal Rules

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya National Assurance Co. Ltd

Applicant

Joseph M. Mbasu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the record of appeal within the prescribed period.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant extension of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, after excluding the supplementary affidavit for non-compliance with procedural rules, the applicant's remaining affidavit did not provide any explanation for the delay in filing the record of appeal. The absence of a satisfactory explanation meant that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its discretion under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to grant the extension of time sought by the applicant. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The applicant's application for extension of time is dismissed.
  • Costs assessed at K.Shs. 3,000/- are payable to the respondent within 30 days from the date of the ruling, failing which execution to issue.