[2008] KEHC 2806 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had promptly applied for proceedings after the judgment and that the delay in obtaining the proceedings was due to administrative delays in the court registry, as evidenced by the certificate of delay. The period taken to obtain the proceedings was properly excluded from the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 2806 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kiamiciri Catholic Church Trustee of Diocese of Murang'a; Applicant: Bishop Peter Kihara; Respondent: Munyi Murage Muthondu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 14 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Enlarge Time for Filing Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeal Filing Deadlines, Certificate of Delay
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kiamiciri Catholic Church Trustee of Diocese of Murang'a
Applicant
Bishop Peter Kihara
Applicant
Munyi Murage Muthondu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Enlarge Time for Filing Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to enlarge time for filing the appeal.
- 3 Whether there are arguable points of law in the proposed appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had promptly applied for proceedings after the judgment and that the delay in obtaining the proceedings was due to administrative delays in the court registry, as evidenced by the certificate of delay. The period taken to obtain the proceedings was properly excluded from the computation of time for filing the appeal. The court further found that the proposed appeal raised important points of law that warranted consideration. In the exercise of its discretion, the court held that the delay was satisfactorily explained and that it was just to grant the extension of time sought.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Time for filing the appeal is enlarged; the proposed appeal shall be filed within the next 14 days.
- Costs of the application to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
Misc Appli 14 of 2008
KIAMICIRI CATHOLIC CHURCHTRUSTEE OF DIOCESE OF MURANG’A
BISHOP PETER KIHARA………………………………..APPLICANTS
VERSUS
MUNYI MURAGE MUTHONDU……..………………..RESPONDENT
RULING
Notice of Motion dated 1/2/2008 seeks order to enlarge time for filing an appeal against Judgment of Senior Resident Magistrate Court dated 9/3/2007. Application is supported by affidavit of advocate who represented the applicant in the lower court.
The applicant applied for proceedings and a certificate of delay has been issued and that the same was supplied on 23/1/2008 and the delay was caused by pressure of work in the court Registry. The certificate shows that it was dated 11/10/2007 but signed n 23/1/2008. There is a Replying affidavit by Respondent Murage Munyi Muthomi who confirms that Judgment was read at Kerugoya on 9/3/2007 and time to file appeal was given.
However the certificate of delay shows that the application for proceedings on 13/3/2007 four days after dated of Judgment and that the proceedings were supplied on 21/9/2007 almost 4 months after the date of application. That period has to be deducted from the period allowed. Then certificate was then dated 11/10/2007. Therefore the period of 30 days will be counted from date of Judgment excluding the days taken in supplying the proceedings. Then the certificate to confirm was not signed until 23/1/2008 and this application was filed on 1/2/2008 after 7 days. It is clear the delay occasioned is explained
Upon perusing the grounds of appeal it is alleged no service was ever affected. That the defendant was not a legal body. That the land involved was allocated in the names of other persons.
There are important points of law which should be argued. The granting of extension of time is in the discretion of court in this case. It is my finding that the delay is explained and there are important issued of law raised in proposed appeal. I exercise my discretion in favour of Applicant and allow the application. The proposed appeal shall be filed within the next 14 days.
Costs to the Respondent.
Dated this 25th April, 2008.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE