[2013] KEHC 4862 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 4862 (KLR)

The court found that, based on the evidence, it was highly possible that the applicant was not aware of the delivery of judgment on 29th February 2012. The court considered the absence of both parties at the time of judgment delivery, the lack of return of service for the notice of judgment, and the subsequent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 4862 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kisii Bottlers Limited; Respondent: Melchizedek M. Atika trading as Serengeti Bar & Restaurant
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Appeal 175 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Lodgment, Mistake of Counsel, Access to Justice
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Lodgment Mistake of Counsel Access to Justice

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kisii Bottlers Limited

Appellant

Melchizedek M. Atika trading as Serengeti Bar & Restaurant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to file an appeal against the judgment in Kisii CMCC No.270 of 2009.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's delay in filing the appeal was excusable due to lack of notice of judgment delivery.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should be penalized for the mistake or inaction of its previous counsel.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, based on the evidence, it was highly possible that the applicant was not aware of the delivery of judgment on 29th February 2012. The court considered the absence of both parties at the time of judgment delivery, the lack of return of service for the notice of judgment, and the subsequent change of advocates. The court held that the delay of two months was not so inordinate as to disentitle the applicant to the court's discretion. The court emphasized that the applicant should not suffer for the mistakes or inaction of its previous advocate, especially where the applicant acted promptly upon learning of the judgment. The application for extension of time was...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to file the appeal within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
  • The applicant shall pay the respondent costs of this application assessed at Kshs.5,000 within 30 days, failing which execution may issue.