[2008] KECA 299 (KLR)

[2008] KECA 299 (KLR)

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a credible or sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal and the application itself, which was filed five months after judgment. The court found the delay inordinate and inexcusable, noting that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KECA 299 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Margaret Njeri Njoroge (the Administratrix and the beneficiary of the Estate of Ndua Thiongo); Respondent: Hanna Wambui Kibe Njoroge (the Administratrix and the beneficiary of the Estate of John Kibe Ragae)
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 226 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
AM Githinji
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Adverse Possession, Appeal Procedure, Delay and Inordinate Delay
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Adverse Possession Appeal Procedure Delay and Inordinate Delay

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Njeri Njoroge (the Administratrix and the beneficiary of the Estate of Ndua Thiongo)

Applicant

Hanna Wambui Kibe Njoroge (the Administratrix and the beneficiary of the Estate of John Kibe Ragae)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the extension of time to file notice and record of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal is arguable and not frivolous.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the notice of appeal and application is inordinate and excusable.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a credible or sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal and the application itself, which was filed five months after judgment. The court found the delay inordinate and inexcusable, noting that the applicant's explanation was not credible, as the notice of appeal was neither dated nor signed, and there was no evidence of payment of filing fees. The court also determined that the intended appeal lacked merit due to the applicant's admissions regarding the respondent's long-standing possession and development of the suit land. Further, the court held that allowing the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for extension of time to file notice and record of appeal out of time is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of the application to the respondent.