[2020] KECA 794 (KLR)

[2020] KECA 794 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's engagement of two different law firms to pursue parallel applications in respect of the same matter was untenable and amounted to an abuse of the court process. This alone was sufficient ground to strike out the application. Even if the merits were to be considered, the applicant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KECA 794 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Maria Mutisya; Respondent: Kienzl Hemuth
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 66 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Record of Appeal
Outcome
application struck out with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Abuse of Court Process, Representation by Advocate, Appeals Process, Land Ownership Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Abuse of Court Process Representation by Advocate Appeals Process Land Ownership Disputes

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Mutisya

Applicant

Kienzl Hemuth

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time to file the record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's engagement of multiple law firms in parallel proceedings constitutes an abuse of court process.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's engagement of two different law firms to pursue parallel applications in respect of the same matter was untenable and amounted to an abuse of the court process. This alone was sufficient ground to strike out the application. Even if the merits were to be considered, the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the record of appeal, merely attributing it to her 'erstwhile advocate' without substantiation. The court emphasized that extension of time is a discretionary and equitable remedy, not a right, and the applicant did not meet the threshold for the exercise of such discretion. Consequently, the application was...

Court Disposition

application struck out with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 1st August 2019 is struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.