[2007] KECA 104 (KLR)
The court found that the reasons advanced by the applicant for the delay in serving the notice of appeal were meritorious and that the application was unopposed by any of the respondents. The court exercised its discretion to extend the time for service, holding that the service effected on 23rd and 27th October...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KECA 104 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lazarus K. Kerich; Respondent: Republic; Respondent: Kessesland Disputes Tribunal; Respondent: Joseph Kiplagat Mwei
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal (Application) 323 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Serve Notice of Appeal
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Time for serving notice of appeal extended. Service on 2nd and 3rd respondents on 23rd and 27th October 2006 deemed proper. Costs to 3rd respondent only.
- Judges
- CA Otieno
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Service of Notice, Appeals Process
- 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
Lazarus K. Kerich
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Kessesland Disputes Tribunal
Respondent
Joseph Kiplagat Mwei
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Serve Notice of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to serve the notice of appeal on the 2nd and 3rd respondents out of time.
- 2 Whether service of the notice of appeal effected on 23rd and 27th October 2006 should be deemed proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the reasons advanced by the applicant for the delay in serving the notice of appeal were meritorious and that the application was unopposed by any of the respondents. The court exercised its discretion to extend the time for service, holding that the service effected on 23rd and 27th October 2006 upon the 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively should be deemed proper. The court further ordered that the 3rd respondent, by consent, would have the costs of the application, while the 1st and 2nd respondents, though served, were not entitled to costs as they were not in attendance.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Time for serving notice of appeal extended. Service on 2nd and 3rd respondents on 23rd and 27th October 2006 deemed proper. Costs to 3rd respondent only.
Orders
- Time for serving notice of appeal on the 2nd and 3rd respondents is extended to the dates of actual service, namely 23rd and 27th October 2006 respectively.
- Service of the notice of appeal on the 2nd and 3rd respondents on 23rd and 27th October 2006 is deemed proper service.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
CIVIL APPLI 323 OF 2006 (ELD 22/2006)
LAZARUS K. KERICH ………………………...………….. APPLICANT
AND
REPUBLIC ………………………………….……… 1ST RESPONDENT
KESSESLANDDISPUTES TRIBUNAL …………. 2ND RESPONDENT
JOSEPH KIPLAGAT MWEI ………………...…….. 3RD RESPONDENT
(Application for extension of time to serve notice of appeal out of time in an intended
appeal from the ruling and order of the High Court of Kenya at
Eldoret (Gacheche, J) dated 3rd October, 2006
in
H.C. Misc. Application No. 37 of 2002)
***************************
R U L I N G
I have before me a notice of motion dated 6th December 2006 seeking that the time for serving the notice of appeal from the ruling and order of the Honourable Lady Justice Gacheche delivered on the 3rd October 2006 in Eldoret High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 37 of 2002 on the 2nd and 3rd respondents be extended and that the notice of appeal lodged in Eldoret High Court Misc. Civil Application No. 37 of 2002 on the 12th October 2006 and served on the 2nd & 3rd respondents on 23rd and 27th October 2006 respectively be deemed to have been duly served. The application is not opposed and Mr. Manani for the third Respondent submits as much. The 1st and 2nd respondents were served but are not before me today. Reasons for seeking the order are annexed to the application and are in my humble view, meritorious. In the circumstances, the application is allowed. The time for serving notice of appeal as indicated above is extended to such time that the service of the same notice upon the 2nd and 3rd respondents on 23rd and 27th October 2006 respectively is deemed to have been proper service. The parties agree by consent that the 3rd respondent will have the costs of this application and so be it. Costs of the application to the 3rd respondent. As the 1st and 2nd respondents are not in attendance though served, they will not have the costs of the application. Order accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Eldoret this 22nd day of February, 2007.
J.W. ONYANGO OTIENO
…………………………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR