[2025] KECPT 166 (KLR)

[2025] KECPT 166 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient or convincing reasons for the delay in filing the appeal out of time. The applicant did not explain why no action was taken upon service of the Statement of Claim in June 2024 or why there was a two-month delay before seeking leave. The Tribunal also...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KECPT 166 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Roberts Liboso; Respondent: Besco Cooperative Sacco Society
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Surcharge Orders, Service of Process, Default Judgment
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Leave to Appeal Out of Time Surcharge Orders Service of Process Default Judgment

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roberts Liboso

Applicant

Besco Cooperative Sacco Society

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Proceedings

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for delay in filing an appeal out of time against the Surcharge Order.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal should grant a stay of proceedings in Tribunal Case No. CTC.NO. E332 of 2024 pending determination of this application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's recourse lies with the Tribunal or the High Court via judicial review.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient or convincing reasons for the delay in filing the appeal out of time. The applicant did not explain why no action was taken upon service of the Statement of Claim in June 2024 or why there was a two-month delay before seeking leave. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's draft Memorandum of Appeal raised issues of process that would be more appropriately addressed through judicial review in the High Court, not by the Tribunal. As such, the Tribunal was not persuaded to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant, and the application was dismissed despite being unopposed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 2.8.2024 is dismissed.
  • File ordered as closed.