[2019] KEHC 6910 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 6910 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant, represented by the same advocates throughout, had ample opportunity to file a cross appeal if aggrieved by the lower court's judgment. The delay of nearly two years in seeking leave was not sufficiently explained, and the application was filed only days before the scheduled...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 6910 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited; Respondent: Eric Mlongo Owino (Suing on his own behalf and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Johnstone Owino (Deceased))
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 640 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Cross Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the appellant/respondent
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Leave to File Cross Appeal, Extension of Time, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Leave to File Cross Appeal Extension of Time Exercise of 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited

Appellant

Eric Mlongo Owino (Suing on his own behalf and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Johnstone Owino (Deceased))

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Cross Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file a cross appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the application for leave to cross appeal was sufficiently explained.
  3. 3 Whether granting the orders sought would prejudice the parties or cause undue delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant, represented by the same advocates throughout, had ample opportunity to file a cross appeal if aggrieved by the lower court's judgment. The delay of nearly two years in seeking leave was not sufficiently explained, and the application was filed only days before the scheduled hearing of the appeal. The court held that granting the orders sought would cause further delay and that the issues raised could be addressed during the hearing of the main appeal. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the application for leave to file a cross appeal out of time.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the appellant/respondent

Orders

  • The application for leave to file a cross appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the appellant/respondent.