[2024] KECA 983 (KLR)

[2024] KECA 983 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, as judgment was delivered without notice to the parties and the applicant acted promptly upon learning of it. The delay was not inordinate, and the grounds of appeal were arguable. The respondents did not oppose the application, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KECA 983 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Senteu Kiboi; Respondent: Kenya Power & Lighting Co Limited; Respondent: Shades Horticulture Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E246 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
S ole Kantai
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Filing Deadlines, Service of Judgment, Court Discretion, Delay Explanation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Filing Deadlines Service of Judgment Court Discretion Delay Explanation

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Senteu Kiboi

Applicant

Kenya Power & Lighting Co Limited

Respondent

Shades Horticulture Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing and serving the memorandum and record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of notice of judgment delivery to the parties justifies extension of time.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the extension is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, as judgment was delivered without notice to the parties and the applicant acted promptly upon learning of it. The delay was not inordinate, and the grounds of appeal were arguable. The respondents did not oppose the application, and no undue prejudice would result from granting the extension. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for extension of time to file and serve the notice and record of appeal.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Notice of Appeal to be lodged within seven (7) days of the ruling date.
  • Costs of the motion to be in the appeal.