[2005] KEHC 827 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 827 (KLR)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal out of time was confused and ambiguous, particularly regarding the dates of the judgment and the period of delay. The applicants failed to provide a clear and coherent explanation for the delay, and the supporting affidavit and documents did not clarify the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 827 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lucy Wanjiru Mucendu; Applicant: Veronica Wangui Kiragu; Applicant: Beatrice Kariko Gathogo; Applicant: Jane Wangari Miano; Applicant: Margaret Wangeci Njuraita; Respondent: Pauline W. Wanjohi; Respondent: Mary Njoki Muthii; Respondent: Jane Wangeci Warui
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 148 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Extension of Time, Certificate of Delay
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Out of Time Extension of Time Certificate of Delay

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucy Wanjiru Mucendu

Applicant

Veronica Wangui Kiragu

Applicant

Beatrice Kariko Gathogo

Applicant

Jane Wangari Miano

Applicant

Margaret Wangeci Njuraita

Applicant

Pauline W. Wanjohi

Respondent

Mary Njoki Muthii

Respondent

Jane Wangeci Warui

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient grounds for leave to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the application is clear and unambiguous regarding the dates relevant to the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal out of time was confused and ambiguous, particularly regarding the dates of the judgment and the period of delay. The applicants failed to provide a clear and coherent explanation for the delay, and the supporting affidavit and documents did not clarify the necessary facts. As a result, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application, holding that the applicants had not met the threshold for the grant of leave to appeal out of time.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.