[2001] KECA 20 (KLR)

[2001] KECA 20 (KLR)

The court held that the respondent was entitled to an adjournment because the hearing notice was served late, and two days were excluded in the computation of time. Denying the respondent an opportunity to file a replying affidavit would amount to a denial of justice, especially given the complex and unresolved...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KECA 20 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Khalid Mahmood Butt; Applicant: Evanson Jidiraph Kamau; Applicant: Bertha Wanjiru Kamau; Applicant: Church Commissioners for Kenya; Respondent: Edward Rurii Kanjabi
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 176 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
adjournment granted; leave to file replying affidavit within three days; application stood over for new date; costs in the cause
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Adjournment, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Adjournment Service of Process

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khalid Mahmood Butt

Applicant

Evanson Jidiraph Kamau

Applicant

Bertha Wanjiru Kamau

Applicant

Church Commissioners for Kenya

Applicant

Edward Rurii Kanjabi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be granted an adjournment to file a replying affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether late service of the hearing notice justifies an adjournment.
  3. 3 Whether denying the respondent an opportunity to reply would amount to a denial of justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent was entitled to an adjournment because the hearing notice was served late, and two days were excluded in the computation of time. Denying the respondent an opportunity to file a replying affidavit would amount to a denial of justice, especially given the complex and unresolved nature of the disputes between the parties. The court therefore granted leave for adjournment, allowed the respondent to file a replying affidavit within three days, and directed that the application be removed from the day's cause list and given a new hearing date on a priority basis.

Court Disposition

adjournment granted; leave to file replying affidavit within three days; application stood over for new date; costs in the cause

Orders

  • The respondent is granted leave to lodge a replying affidavit within three days.
  • The application is removed from the day's cause list and stood over to a new date to be obtained in the Registry on a priority basis.