[2018] KEHC 4693 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 4693 (KLR)

The court found that although it has unfettered discretion to extend time, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and only where the applicant provides plausible reasons for the delay. In this case, the applicant merely stated that his former advocate failed to file the amended bill of costs within the time granted, but did not advance any substantive ground or explanation for the prolonged delay of over five years. The absence of a satisfactory explanation rendered the application without merit, and the court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 4693 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: M & E Consulting Engineers; Defendant: Lake Basin Development Authority; Applicant: J. G. Mwangi T/A Forefront Agencies
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
24 July 2018
Case Number
Civil Suit 2098 of 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Extend Time for Filing Amended Auctioneer's Bill of Costs
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Taxation of Costs, Auctioneer Bills
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Taxation of Costs Auctioneer Bills

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M & E Consulting Engineers

Plaintiff

Lake Basin Development Authority

Defendant

J. G. Mwangi T/A Forefront Agencies

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Extend Time for Filing Amended Auctioneer's Bill of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing the auctioneer's amended bill of costs.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the amended bill of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although it has unfettered discretion to extend time, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and only where the applicant provides plausible reasons for the delay. In this case, the applicant merely stated that his former advocate failed to file the amended bill of costs within the time granted, but did not advance any substantive ground or explanation for the prolonged delay of over five years. The absence of a satisfactory explanation rendered the application without merit, and the court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The motion dated 2nd June 2015 is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.