[2024] KECA 168 (KLR)

[2024] KECA 168 (KLR)

The court found that although the applicant's reason for delay—difficulty in reaching his advocate—was not the most acceptable, the application for extension of time was brought promptly, just over a month after the judgment. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, noting the absence of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KECA 168 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Mureithi Komu; Respondent: Peter Githiu Komu; Respondent: Chege Ndua (Sued as the Legal Representative of Suleiman Ndua Kairie)
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E715 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
F Tuiyott
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Court of Appeal Rules, Delay in Filing, Prejudice to Respondent
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Appeals Process Court of Appeal Rules Delay in Filing Prejudice to Respondent

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Mureithi Komu

Applicant

Peter Githiu Komu

Respondent

Chege Ndua (Sued as the Legal Representative of Suleiman Ndua Kairie)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the notice and record of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the discretion to extend time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules should be exercised in favour of the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the extension is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicant's reason for delay—difficulty in reaching his advocate—was not the most acceptable, the application for extension of time was brought promptly, just over a month after the judgment. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, noting the absence of opposition from the respondents and the lack of demonstrated prejudice to them. The court emphasized that the strength of the intended appeal is not a pivotal consideration in such applications. Accordingly, the application for extension of time was allowed, permitting the applicant to file and serve the notice and record of appeal within 45 days.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The applicant shall file and serve a notice of appeal and record of appeal within 45 days of this order.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the intended appeal.