[2020] KESC 31 (KLR)
The Supreme Court declined to grant the application for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay. Without a valid Notice of Appeal, the application for certification as a matter of general public importance could not be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KESC 31 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Langata Development Co Ltd; Respondent: Margaret Esther Dames; Respondent: John Andrews Dames o/b Mary Wairimu Dames
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Court Station
- Supreme Court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Application 24 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Certification for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- PM Mwilu, MK Ibrahim, SC Wanjala, NS Ndungu, I Lenaola
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Certification of Leave, Jurisdiction of Supreme Court, Notice of Appeal, Public Importance Criteria
- 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
Langata Development Co Ltd
Applicant
Margaret Esther Dames
Respondent
John Andrews Dames o/b Mary Wairimu Dames
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Certification for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the Court of Appeal on certification of leave to appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal to warrant extension of time.
- 3 Whether the intended appeal raises issues of general public importance warranting certification.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court declined to grant the application for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay. Without a valid Notice of Appeal, the application for certification as a matter of general public importance could not be considered. The Court emphasized that its discretion to enlarge time is only exercised where sufficient cause is shown, and in this case, the applicant did not meet that threshold. Consequently, the application was disallowed and the applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the application.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2019 is disallowed.
- The applicant shall bear the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Langata Development Co Ltd v Dames & another (Application 24 of 2019) [2020] KESC 31 (KLR) (4 September 2020) (Ruling)
Langata Development Co Ltd v Margaret Esther Dames & another [2020] eKLR
Neutral citation: [2020] KESC 31 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Supreme Court of Kenya
Application 24 of 2019
PM Mwilu, DCJ & V-P, MK Ibrahim, SC Wanjala, NS Ndungu & I Lenaola, SCJJ
September 4, 2020
Between
Langata Development Co Ltd
Applicant
and
Margaret Esther Dames
1st Respondent
John Andrews Dames o/b Mary Wairimu Dames
2nd Respondent
(An Application for Review of the Ruling on Certification of Leave to Appeal Judgement & Order of Court of Appeal at Nairobi in Civil Appeal No 283 of 2016 (Ouko (P), Kiage and Murgor JJA Civil Appeal 283 of 2016 )
Ruling
1. Upon perusing the Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2019 by Langáta Development Company Limited pursuant to articles 163(4)(b), 159, and 40 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Section 15 of the Supreme Court Act, 2011, regulation 24 26 and 53 of the Supreme Court Regulations, 2012, where they seek leave to have the Notice of Appeal lodged be deemed to have been lodged within time, as well as, certification as a matter of general public importance in respect of an anticipated appeal arising from the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 26th of February 2019; and
2. Upon reading the Affidavit of Mr. Eliud A Kariuki sworn on the 31st of July 2019, as well as a further Affidavit dated 13th of March 2020, in support of their application; an
3. Upon perusing the grounds adduced by the Applicants as well as their submissions dated 13th March 2019, filed on the same day and further submission filed on the 4th of June 2020, in which they urge that their matter raises issues of general public importance in line with the criteria laid down in the Case of Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi Ruscone, Supreme Court Application No 4 of 2012; that rule 53 of the Supreme Court Rules gives this Court the jurisdiction to extend time, and that article 163(5) of the Constitution of Kenya; and that section 24(2) of the Supreme Court Rules do give this court jurisdiction to review a ruling of the Court of Appeal on the issue of certification.
4. Upon considering the Respondent’s Grounds of Opposition and their Replying Affidavits filed on the 3rd of March 2019 together with written submissions, where they argue that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review the decision of the Court of Appeal; that there is no Notice of Appeal on record and in the absence of one, the Application before the Court is incompetent, incurably defective and ought to be struck out; that the issues in the intended appeal do not transcend the private interest of the Applicant who allegedly illegally grabbed the Respondents land, and that third parties are at liberty to purchase their respective plots form the estate of the Respondent on a willing seller-willing buyer basis; and
5. Having considered the Application, and noting that the Applicant has not satisfactorily explained the inordinate delay to warrant exercise of this Court’s discretion to enlarge time, we do decline to allow the application for leave to file a Notice of Appeal.
6. Having reached this conclusion then, the application for certification has no legs to stand on and we do not find it necessary to consider it.
7. For reasons aforesaid, we now make the following orders:i.The Notice of Motion dated 31st July 2019 is disallowed.ii.The Applicant shall bear the costs of the application.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020. ............................................................P. M. MWILUDEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE & VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT.............................................................M. K. IBRAHIMJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.............................................................S. C. WANJALAJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.............................................................NJOKI NDUNGUJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.............................................................I. LENAOLAJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURTI certify that this is a true copy of the originalREGISTRAR,SUPREME COURT OF KENYA