[2024] KECA 1347 (KLR)

[2024] KECA 1347 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's delay in filing the record of appeal was satisfactorily explained as being due to the mistake of his former advocates, and not due to any deliberate inaction on his part. The applicant had always intended to appeal, and upon discovering the omission, acted promptly to seek...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KECA 1347 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Nelson Murithi Mboroki; Respondent: Monicah Naitore; Respondent: Meru County Government
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E066 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Record of Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
S ole Kantai
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Res Judicata, Mistake of Advocate
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Appeals Process Res Judicata Mistake of Advocate

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

Nelson Murithi Mboroki

Applicant

Monicah Naitore

Respondent

Meru County Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate or excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the grounds of appeal are arguable and not frivolous.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's delay in filing the record of appeal was satisfactorily explained as being due to the mistake of his former advocates, and not due to any deliberate inaction on his part. The applicant had always intended to appeal, and upon discovering the omission, acted promptly to seek extension of time. The grounds of appeal were not frivolous and merited consideration. The respondents, having been served, did not oppose the application, and there was no evidence of prejudice to them if the extension was granted. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant and allowed the application for extension of time.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The applicant shall lodge the record of appeal within fourteen (14) days of the date of this ruling.
  • Costs of the Motion will abide the appeal.