[2001] KECA 242 (KLR)

[2001] KECA 242 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that the learned single judge properly exercised his discretion in granting the extension of time to file and serve the Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal out of time. The Court found that non-compliance with rule 22 was not material to the exercise of discretion in this context and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KECA 242 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Muchanga Investments Limited; Respondent: Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Limited; Respondent: Registrar of Titles; Respondent: Attorney-General
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 376 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Reference Under Rule 54(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules; Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
reference dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Court Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Court Discretion

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

Muchanga Investments Limited

Applicant

Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Limited

Respondent

Registrar of Titles

Respondent

Attorney-General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Reference Under Rule 54(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules; Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the single judge erred in granting an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether non-compliance with rule 22 of the Court of Appeal Rules invalidated the extension granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the learned single judge properly exercised his discretion in granting the extension of time to file and serve the Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal out of time. The Court found that non-compliance with rule 22 was not material to the exercise of discretion in this context and agreed with the single judge's approach. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error in principle or otherwise that would justify interfering with the order. Consequently, the reference was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

reference dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The reference is dismissed with costs to the respondents.