[2024] KEHC 8393 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient reasons or evidence of active pursuit of the necessary proceedings from the Tribunal to justify an extension of time. The court emphasized that judicial discretion to extend time must be exercised judiciously and fairly to both parties. Given the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 8393 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mr Alloys Mandu, Chairman Mumias Cane Farmers Co-Operative Union; Respondent: Washington Silvanus Washiali; Respondent: Mumias Cane Farmers Co-Operative Union
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E056 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Compliance With Court Orders
- Outcome
- Application for extension of time disallowed; record of appeal struck out; appeal dismissed; stay of 14 days granted to appellant.
- Judges
- AC Bett
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeal Striking Out, Record of Appeal Filing, Judicial Discretion, Compliance With Court Orders
- 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
Mr Alloys Mandu, Chairman Mumias Cane Farmers Co-Operative Union
Appellant
Washington Silvanus Washiali
Respondent
Mumias Cane Farmers Co-Operative Union
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Compliance With Court Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant has provided sufficient reason for extension of time to file the record of appeal.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for compliance with previous court orders.
- 3 Whether the appeal should be struck out for non-compliance with court directions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient reasons or evidence of active pursuit of the necessary proceedings from the Tribunal to justify an extension of time. The court emphasized that judicial discretion to extend time must be exercised judiciously and fairly to both parties. Given the unexplained delay and lack of diligence by the appellant, the court declined to grant the extension, struck out the record of appeal, and dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the principle that compliance with court orders and timelines is essential to the administration of justice.
Court Disposition
Application for extension of time disallowed; record of appeal struck out; appeal dismissed; stay of 14 days granted to appellant.
Orders
- Application for extension of time is disallowed.
- Record of appeal is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Mandu, Chairman Mumias Cane Farmers Co-operative Union v Washiali & another (Civil Appeal E056 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 8393 (KLR) (27 June 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 8393 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kakamega
Civil Appeal E056 of 2024
AC Bett, J
June 27, 2024
Between
Mr Alloys Mandu, Chairman Mumias Cane Farmers Co-Operative Union
Appellant
and
Washington Silvanus Washiali
1st Respondent
Mumias Cane Farmers Co-Operative Union
2nd Respondent
(Being an Appeal from the Ruling of Honourable B. Kimemiah, Hon. B. Sawe, Hon. F. Lotuiya, Hon. P. Gichuki and Hon. Chesikaw delivered on 7. 3.2024 at Nairobi vide Kakamega Co-operative Tribunal Case No. 12B of 2018)
Ruling
1. On 3rd April, 2024, the Court gave orders to the parties herein with the view to fast tracking the hearing and determination of the Appeal. The Court directed the Appellant to file and serve Record of Appeal and Submissions within forty five (45) days to enable the Respondents file and serve Submissions within fifteen (15) days after service.
2. The matter was then fixed for Mention for compliance today. More than sixty (60) days have lapsed since the Court issued orders that are yet to be complied with.
3. Ms. Rauto for the Appellant has requested for more time to comply. She says the Tribunal did not furnish them with proceedings. The 1st Respondent opposes the application for extension of time. He says he has suffered by the delay which cannot be explained by the Appellant. The Appellant has not produced anything to show that they have been in active pursuit of the proceedings. Ms. Rauto has been aware that she had limited time within which to file the Record of Appeal. She has failed to do so and has not tendered sufficient reasons for failure.
4. Although this Court has discretion to extend time, the discretion is to be exercised judiciously. The sword of justice cuts both ways. The 1st Respondent is also entitled to a fair hearing and to delay him on account of failure by the Appellant to comply with court orders would do injustice to him.
5. I therefore disallow the application for extension of time and I strike out the Record of Appeal and dismiss the Appeal as directed by Hon. Justice P. J. O. Otieno in his Order dated 3rd April, 2024.
6. Appellant granted stay of fourteen (14) days.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024. A. BETTJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Rauto for the Appellant1st Respondent present in personCourt Assistant: Polycap