[2024] KEHC 2225 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 2225 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant filed the memorandum of appeal out of time without first seeking leave of court, contrary to Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicant's explanation for the delay—miscalculation and work pressures—was not considered sufficient cause. The respondent had already settled...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 2225 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Gibson Mukundi Muchiri; Respondent: Climate Pal
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 54 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Admit Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
LM Njuguna
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Filing Out of Time, Leave of Court, Prejudice to Respondent
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Filing Out of Time Leave of Court Prejudice to Respondent

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gibson Mukundi Muchiri

Applicant

Climate Pal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Admit Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the court should admit and deem the memorandum of appeal as filed out of time with leave of court.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent will suffer prejudice if the application is allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant filed the memorandum of appeal out of time without first seeking leave of court, contrary to Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicant's explanation for the delay—miscalculation and work pressures—was not considered sufficient cause. The respondent had already settled the decretal amount, and the applicant did not dispute this fact, indicating that allowing the application would prejudice the respondent. The court emphasized that leave to file an appeal out of time must be sought and granted before the appeal is filed, not after. The application was deemed an afterthought and an abuse of court process. Consequently, the court dismissed the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.