[2022] KEHC 10642 (KLR)
The court found that while the delay in seeking leave to appeal out of time was not inordinate, the applicant failed to provide a plausible or satisfactory explanation for the delay. The mere fact that the insurer took time to give instructions was not a sufficient reason, especially where no attempt was made to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 10642 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kitale Victory Garage; Respondent: Amos Matuku
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 51 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- PJO Otieno
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeal Out of Time, Judicial Discretion, Statutory Timelines
- 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
Kitale Victory Garage
Applicant
Amos Matuku
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the delay in seeking leave to appeal out of time is inordinate and excusable under the law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the delay in seeking leave to appeal out of time was not inordinate, the applicant failed to provide a plausible or satisfactory explanation for the delay. The mere fact that the insurer took time to give instructions was not a sufficient reason, especially where no attempt was made to explain why instructions were not issued within the statutory period. The court emphasized that inefficiency or internal processes of a party cannot be used as an excuse for non-compliance with statutory timelines. Consequently, the application for extension of time was found to lack merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for extension of time to appeal out of time is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Kitale Victory Garage v Matuku (Miscellaneous Civil Application 51 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 10642 (KLR) (30 May 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 10642 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kakamega
Miscellaneous Civil Application 51 of 2022
PJO Otieno, J
May 30, 2022
Between
Kitale Victory Garage
Applicant
and
Amos Matuku
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Judgment sought to be appealed against was delivered on 3rd March 2022. Four days later, on 7th March 2022, the fact of delivery was communicated to the insurer and instructions sought whether or not to appeal.
2. It took the insurer upto 13th April 2022 to give instructions including the need to seek leave to appeal out of time.
3. For Court to exercise its discretion in extending time, there must be an explanation for the delay and the delay must not be inordinate. Here the delay is not inordinate but I do find that there is no plausible explanation why the appeal was not filed in time.
4. There is no attempt to say why instructions were not issued within time. When a party choses an inefficient way to conduct its affairs, he cannot use the same choice to be the excuse not to act within the laws imposing statutory timelines.
5. For this reason, I find no merit in the application and the same is dismissed with costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT, THIS 30TH DAY OF MAY 2022. PATRICK J. O. OTIENOJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Abok for the RespondentNo appearance for Kimondo Gachoka for the ApplicantCourt Assistant: Kulubi