[2001] KECA 134 (KLR)

[2001] KECA 134 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a bona fide or satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the requisite letter to the Registry. The illness of a clerk did not absolve the advocates from their duty to inquire into the timely filing or non-filing of the letter for over seven months. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KECA 134 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kiu Ranching and Farming Co-operative Society Ltd; Respondent: Kisee Maweu & 9 Others
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 193 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to Refer Matter to Full Court
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Exercise of Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Exercise of 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiu Ranching and Farming Co-operative Society Ltd

Applicant

Kisee Maweu & 9 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to Refer Matter to Full Court

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient cause for extension of time to refer the matter to the full court.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the requisite letter was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a bona fide or satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the requisite letter to the Registry. The illness of a clerk did not absolve the advocates from their duty to inquire into the timely filing or non-filing of the letter for over seven months. The subsequent delay in taking any action to regularize the non-filing until the application was lodged further demonstrated a lack of diligence. In the absence of any compelling reason or evidence to justify the delay, the court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant and dismissed the application with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for extension of time is dismissed with costs.