[2021] KECA 445 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 445 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant, despite being unrepresented, failed to act with reasonable diligence in pursuing his appeal. The delay of over three years from the date of judgment was deemed inordinate and inadequately explained, as the applicant wasted time pursuing a review instead of an appeal and did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 445 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Martin Maurice Odhiambo; Respondent: Joel Kipsang A. Ng'eno; Respondent: Kenya Commercial Bank Limited; Respondent: Dawning Agencies; Respondent: M/S E. M. Orina & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Land Registrar; Respondent: Samwuel Birgen Cheruiyot
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 123 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
GG Okwengu
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Judicial Discretion

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

Martin Maurice Odhiambo

Applicant

Joel Kipsang A. Ng'eno

Respondent

Kenya Commercial Bank Limited

Respondent

Dawning Agencies

Respondent

M/S E. M. Orina & Co. Advocates

Respondent

Land Registrar

Respondent

Samwuel Birgen Cheruiyot

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds for extension of time to file notice and record of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was reasonable and adequately explained.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the extension is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant, despite being unrepresented, failed to act with reasonable diligence in pursuing his appeal. The delay of over three years from the date of judgment was deemed inordinate and inadequately explained, as the applicant wasted time pursuing a review instead of an appeal and did not act promptly even after withdrawing the review application. The court held that it would be unjust to keep the successful litigants from enjoying the fruits of their judgment due to the applicant's laxity. Consequently, the applicant did not merit the court's discretionary extension of time, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 8th July, 2019 is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.