[1999] KECA 139 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the long delay between the judgment date and the filing of the application for extension of time. Even after the applicant's counsel was instructed and after viewing the proceedings, there was a further unexplained delay before the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] KECA 139 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Macharia Karugu I; Respondent: Chege Macharia
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 211 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Court Discretion
- 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
Macharia Karugu I
Applicant
Chege Macharia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the notice and record of appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the long delay between the judgment date and the filing of the application for extension of time. Even after the applicant's counsel was instructed and after viewing the proceedings, there was a further unexplained delay before the application was filed. The absence of a reasonable and credible explanation for the delay led the court to refuse to exercise its discretion under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules. Consequently, the application for extension of time was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for extension of time to file notice and record of appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURTSOF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
civil misc appl 211 of 98
MACHARIA KARUGU I ......................................APPLICANT
AND
CHEGE MACHARIA .........................................RESPONDENT
(Application for extension of time to file Notice and Record of Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Justice Githinji) dated 13th October, 1997
in
H.C.C.C. NO. 379 OF 1986)
*************
R U L I N G
This is an application under rule 4 of the Rules of this Court for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and a record of appeal out of time. The judgment which is intended to be appealed against was given on 13th October, 1997 and no notice of appeal was filed within the time prescribed. Even on the basis of Mr. Mwihia being instructed in February 1998 this application was not filed until 4th September 1998. This is a long delay which has not been explained. After viewing the proceedings in July 1998 this application was not filed until, as I have already seen, 4th September, 1998. There is no explanation for this long delay.
In these circumstances I have no alternative but to refuse to exercise my discretion. The application is dismissed with costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 25th day of October, 1999.
A.A. LAKHA
.................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR