[2000] KECA 62 (KLR)

[2000] KECA 62 (KLR)

The court held that the applicants acted promptly by bringing the application for extension of time within 15 days of their appeal being struck out, which is not an inordinate delay. The absence of opposition from the majority of respondents, and the lack of appearance by the remaining respondents despite proper...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] KECA 62 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Father Makarios Ngugi; Applicant: Father Paul Njoroge; Applicant: Geoffrey Muoria; Respondent: The Registrar of Societies; Respondent: John G. Kimani; Respondent: Moses N. Gichuhi; Respondent: Zadock O. Oloo; Respondent: Fred Kago; Respondent: George Onyango; Respondent: Robert Kaburu; Respondent: Niphon N. K. Magu
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 327 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed. Extension of time granted.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Struck Out, Court of Appeal Rules, Reinstatement of Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Struck Out Court of Appeal Rules Reinstatement of Appeal

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father Makarios Ngugi

Applicant

Father Paul Njoroge

Applicant

Geoffrey Muoria

Applicant

The Registrar of Societies

Respondent

John G. Kimani

Respondent

Moses N. Gichuhi

Respondent

Zadock O. Oloo

Respondent

Fred Kago

Respondent

George Onyango

Respondent

Robert Kaburu

Respondent

Niphon N. K. Magu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an extension of time to file and serve a fresh notice of appeal and record of appeal after their initial appeal was struck out for incompetence.
  2. 2 Whether the application for extension of time was made promptly and without undue delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants acted promptly by bringing the application for extension of time within 15 days of their appeal being struck out, which is not an inordinate delay. The absence of opposition from the majority of respondents, and the lack of appearance by the remaining respondents despite proper service, further supported the grant of the application. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to extend the time for filing and serving a fresh notice of appeal and record of appeal, finding no prejudice to the respondents and that the interests of justice warranted the extension.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Extension of time granted.

Orders

  • Applicants granted 10 days to file and serve a fresh notice of appeal.
  • Applicants granted a further 30 days to file and serve a record of appeal.