[2023] KECA 605 (KLR)

[2023] KECA 605 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide credible evidence of having filed a notice of appeal within the prescribed time, as no such notice was annexed to the application. The applicant also failed to apply for proceedings within the required 30 days, instead waiting over eight months after the judgment....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KECA 605 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Nackson Onyancha Momanyi; Respondent: John Nyangau Monyenche
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E002 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
M Ngugi
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Out of Time, Court of Appeal Rules, Delay in Filing, Discretionary Powers
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Out of Time Court of Appeal Rules Delay in Filing Discretionary Powers

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nackson Onyancha Momanyi

Applicant

John Nyangau Monyenche

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the record of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the application for extension of time meets the requirements under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a notice of appeal and timely request for proceedings is fatal to the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide credible evidence of having filed a notice of appeal within the prescribed time, as no such notice was annexed to the application. The applicant also failed to apply for proceedings within the required 30 days, instead waiting over eight months after the judgment. The explanation for the delay was inconsistent and unsupported by the documents provided. The court held that the delay in lodging the record of appeal was excessive and unexplained, and the application did not meet the threshold for extension of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules. In the absence of a response from the respondent and no evidence of service, the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for extension of time to file and serve the record of appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.