[2023] KEELC 590 (KLR)
The court found that while the applicant's supporting affidavit did not explicitly state the reasons for delay, counsel mentioned lack of funds as a cause. The court noted that no evidence was provided regarding the applicant's financial status, but also observed that the respondent failed to demonstrate any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 590 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Maitima M’mwarania; Respondent: Stanley M’itwaruchiu M’impwi (Sued as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Petero M’impwi Nabea – Deceased)
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application E040 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Enlarge Time for Filing Appeal
- Outcome
- Application allowed; time for filing appeal enlarged.
- Judges
- CK Nzili
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Right of Appeal, Delay in Filing Appeal, Discretion of Court
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Maitima M’mwarania
Applicant
Stanley M’itwaruchiu M’impwi (Sued as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Petero M’impwi Nabea – Deceased)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Enlarge Time for Filing Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to enlarge time for filing the intended appeal.
- 3 Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the application is allowed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the applicant's supporting affidavit did not explicitly state the reasons for delay, counsel mentioned lack of funds as a cause. The court noted that no evidence was provided regarding the applicant's financial status, but also observed that the respondent failed to demonstrate any prejudice that would result from the delay. The draft memorandum of appeal raised arguable points, and the respondent did not show that the subject matter had changed status or that he would be prejudiced by the late filing. Applying the principles from Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and relevant case law, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application,...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; time for filing appeal enlarged.
Orders
- The applicant is granted leave to file and serve the memorandum of appeal within 14 days from the date of the ruling.
- Costs to the respondent in any event.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
M’mwarania v M’impwi (Sued as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Petero M’impwi Nabea – Deceased) (Miscellaneous Civil Application E040 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 590 (KLR) (8 February 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 590 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Meru
Miscellaneous Civil Application E040 of 2022
CK Nzili, J
February 8, 2023
Between
John Maitima M’mwarania
Applicant
and
Stanley M’itwaruchiu M’impwi (Sued as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Petero M’impwi Nabea – Deceased)
Respondent
Ruling
1. The court is asked by an application dated 4. 11. 2022 to enlarge time for the filing of an intended appeal against a judgment in Meru No. Chief Magistrates ELC No. 63 of 2019 which delivered on 5. 7.2022.
2. The reasons for the delay as contained in the supporting affidavit sworn on 3. 11. 2022 by John Maitima M’Mwarama are that he instructed his counsel on record to file an appeal only to be told that the time expired on 5. 9.2022. Secondly, it is stated there will be no prejudice to the respondent which may not be compensated by way of damages. The application I s opposed on the ground that the delay of 89 days has not been sufficiently explained.
3. By written submissions dated 1. 12. 2022, the applicant submitted that under Sections 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court has discretion to enlarge time. Reliance was placed on Jaber Mohsen Ali & another vs Priscillah Boit and another (2014) eKLR, Richard Ncharpi Leiyagu vs IEBC and 2 others, Mbaki & others vs Macharia & another (2005) 2 E.A 206Jaldesa Tuke Dabelo vs IEBC & another (2015) eKLR, Raila Odinga & 5 others vs IEBC & 3 others (2013) eKLR, Lemanken Aramata vs Harun Meitamei Lempaka & 2 others (2014) eKLR, Cherotich Sawe vs IEBC & 4 others (2015) eKLR, Equity Bank Ltd vs West Link Mbo Ltd(2013) eKLR, Board of Governors Moi High School Kabarak & another vs Malcom Bell (2013) eKLR, Joseph Schmaderer vs Serah Njeri Ngene(2021)d eKLR & Vishva Stone Suppliers Co. Ltd vs RSR Stone (2006) Ltd (2020) eKLR.
4. The facts in this matter are that the judgment was sent via email to the parties on 5. 8. 2022. The judgment itself is dated 5. 7.2022. Parties however appear to be referring to 5. 8.2022 as the date of delivery. Be that as it may, the court under Section 79 G of the Civil Procedure Act may admit an appeal out of time if there are good reasons and sufficient cause shown for not filing the appeal in time. The principles to apply on whether to extend time or not were discussed by the Supreme Court of Kenya in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs IEBC & 7 others (2014) eKLR. that it is a discretionary power of court which is not a right of a party but exercisable based on material which is satisfactory to the court; there must be reasons for the delay; any prejudice to the opposite party must be considered and the extent of the delay has to be considered.
5. In this application, the reasons for the delay have not been stated in the supporting affidavit. Counsel for the applicant has however mentioned that the applicant lacked funds for lodging the appeal in time. Nothing has been placed before the court on the nature of the financial status of the applicant.
6. In Joseph Schmaderer vs Serah Njeri (supra) the court cited Diplack Kenya Ltd vs William Muthama Kitonyi (2018) eKLR, where Odunga J as he then was held that the court must guard itself against the danger of being led by sympathy especially if there was no excuse for the delay.
7. The application has attached a draft memorandum of appeal which to my mind raises some arguable points. The respondent has not stated through an affidavit what prejudice would be occasioned to him if the appeal were to be filed out of time. There is nothing stated by the respondent if the subject matter has changed status such that the delay has prejudiced him.
8. The upshot is, I find that the application should be given an opportunity to exercise his constitutional right of appeal. I allow the application and order the memorandum of appeal to be filed and served within 14 days from the date hereof. Costs to the respondent in any event.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT THIS 8THDAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023In presence of:C/A: KananuMiss Kiome holding brief for Gikundi for applicantKirimi for Kariuki for respondentHON. C.K. NZILIELC JUDGE