[2008] KEHC 2781 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in filing the supplementary affidavit—namely, lack of bus fare to attend her advocate's office—was a reasonable excuse, reflecting the financial realities faced by many Kenyans. The delay in filing the supplementary affidavit was only a few days, which...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 2781 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Leah Wanja Theuri; Respondent: Ndirangu Karanja
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 5 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Enlarge Time for Filing Supplementary Affidavit
- Outcome
- application allowed with conditions
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Supplementary Affidavit, Court Discretion, Delay in Filing, Adjournment Fees
- 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
Leah Wanja Theuri
Applicant
Ndirangu Karanja
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Enlarge Time for Filing Supplementary Affidavit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the supplementary affidavit.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to enlarge time for filing the supplementary affidavit.
- 3 Whether the applicant's failure to pay adjournment fees affects the granting of further dates.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in filing the supplementary affidavit—namely, lack of bus fare to attend her advocate's office—was a reasonable excuse, reflecting the financial realities faced by many Kenyans. The delay in filing the supplementary affidavit was only a few days, which the court considered not inordinate. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to enlarge the time for filing the supplementary affidavit to 21st July 2005, deeming the affidavit already on record as filed within time. However, the court noted that the applicant had not paid court adjournment fees as previously ordered, and directed that no further dates would be given to...
Court Disposition
application allowed with conditions
Orders
- Time for filing the applicant's supplementary affidavit is enlarged to 21st July 2005.
- The supplementary affidavit already on record is deemed as filed within time.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
MISC CIV APPLI 5 OF 2005
LEAH WANJA THEURI ………………….…….……………….. APPLICANT
versus
NDIRANGU KARANJA ………..……………………………. RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant by an application dated 25th January, 2005 sought leave to file an appeal out of time in respect of a judgment of PMCC No. 254 of 1990 Nyeri. The judgment was delivered on 16th March 2004. That application came up for hearing on 7th July 2005. On that day the Applicant sought and obtained leave to file a supplementary affidavit within Seven days from that date. The Applicant did not file the affidavit until 21st July 2005. That was clearly Seven days out of the time period given to file the same. The Applicant now has moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 15th August 2007. By that application that Applicant seeks leave to enlarge time to file that affidavit. In support of that application the Applicant stated that she attended her advocate’s office on 8th July 2005 in order to sign that affidavit. She did not find her advocate in the officer. On returning home she had difficulty getting bus fare to again attend her advocate’s office. That it was not until 21st July 2005 that she obtained bus fare and was able to travel to her advocate’s office and did sign the affidavit on that day. In the replying affidavit the Respondent said that the Applicant was economical with the truth. The Respondent doubted whether the Applicant had attended her advocate’s office. The Respondent also faulted the application for having been filed two years after the affidavit was filed.
I have considered the application before court. It is correct that the Applicant has delayed in firstly filing the supplementary affidavit and much more in filing the present application. The reason given for not signing the affidavit by the Applicant that is because of the lack of money is in my view reasonable excuse. It is after all a reality for majority of the population in Kenya that they are challenged in respect of money. The delay in filing the supplementary affidavit was just a few days and I am therefore of the view that the Applicant should benefit from the exercise of my discretion and I do hereby enlarge the time of filing the Applicant’s supplementary affidavit to the 21st July 2005. The affidavit already on record is hereby deemed as filed within time. It should be noted however that the Applicant was ordered in this matter on the 24th July, 2007 to pay court adjournment fees. As far as I can discern those fees have not been paid. It is therefore my order that until the adjournment fees in respect of the order of 24th July 2007 are paid no further dates will be given to the Applicant in this matter.
Orders accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE