[2025] KEHC 3693 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 3693 (KLR)

The court found that the Applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, namely the difficulty in obtaining the proceedings and judgment within the prescribed period. Although the delay was inordinate, it was explained and not so excessive as to bar the exercise of judicial discretion. The court considered the Applicant's right to be heard and the absence of substantial prejudice to the Respondents. The court held that the Applicant satisfied the statutory and judicial criteria for extension of time under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and relevant case law. Accordingly, leave to appeal out of time was granted, with costs to be in the cause.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 3693 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Janet Kemunto Masese; Respondent: Kuria Wandundu Hellen; Respondent: Cyprian Onyango Odada
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
26 March 2025
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous E981 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
Application allowed. Leave to appeal out of time granted.
Judges
LP Kassan
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Discretion, Delay Explanation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Judicial Discretion Delay Explanation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janet Kemunto Masese

Applicant

Kuria Wandundu Hellen

Respondent

Cyprian Onyango Odada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to appeal out of time against the judgment in Nairobi CMCC No. 3277 of 2019.
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, namely the difficulty in obtaining the proceedings and judgment within the prescribed period. Although the delay was inordinate, it was explained and not so excessive as to bar the exercise of judicial discretion. The court considered the Applicant's right to be heard and the absence of substantial prejudice to the Respondents. The court held that the Applicant satisfied the statutory and judicial criteria for extension of time under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and relevant case law. Accordingly, leave to appeal out of time was granted, with costs to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Leave to appeal out of time granted.

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted leave to file an appeal out of time, to be filed and served within 21 days from the date of the ruling.
  • The costs of this application will be in the cause.