[2015] KECA 624 (KLR)

[2015] KECA 624 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in seeking to reinstate their application that had been dismissed for non-attendance. The delay exceeded the 30-day period prescribed by Rule 56(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and no justification was provided...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KECA 624 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Manasse Sabara Otwere; Applicant: Zablon Odari Otwere; Applicant: Joash Kivoni Otwere; Respondent: Rebecca Nyamusi Mose
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 200 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Reference From Single Judge to Full Court on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
DK Maraga, AK Murgor
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Land Ownership Disputes, Locus Standi, Tribunal Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Judicial Review Land Ownership Disputes Locus Standi Tribunal Jurisdiction

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manasse Sabara Otwere

Applicant

Zablon Odari Otwere

Applicant

Joash Kivoni Otwere

Applicant

Rebecca Nyamusi Mose

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Reference From Single Judge to Full Court on Application for Extension of Time

  1. 1 Whether the full court should interfere with the single judge's exercise of discretion in refusing extension of time to file and serve notice and record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants provided sufficient explanation for the delay in seeking reinstatement of their dismissed application.
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal is arguable or raises any triable issues.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in seeking to reinstate their application that had been dismissed for non-attendance. The delay exceeded the 30-day period prescribed by Rule 56(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and no justification was provided for this lapse. Furthermore, the court held that the applicants had no legal interest in the suit land, as it had been sold in execution of a court order during the lifetime of their late father, who did not challenge the sale. The court emphasized that litigation must come to an end and that there was no merit in prolonging the dispute. Accordingly, the court declined to...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.