[2023] KECA 729 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to provide a consistent and reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay of 36 months in seeking to file an appeal out of time. The explanations given—failure by counsel to notify them of the ruling and, alternatively, the 1st applicant's ill health and communication...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KECA 729 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Agneta Gazemba Mulama; Applicant: George Havi Mulama; Respondent: Stephen Saramba Viraghi
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application E130 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- F Tuiyott
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Out of Time, Delay in Filing, Explanation for Delay
- 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
Agneta Gazemba Mulama
Applicant
George Havi Mulama
Applicant
Stephen Saramba Viraghi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay of 36 months in filing the appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the inconsistent explanations for the delay justify the exercise of the court's discretion to extend time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to provide a consistent and reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay of 36 months in seeking to file an appeal out of time. The explanations given—failure by counsel to notify them of the ruling and, alternatively, the 1st applicant's ill health and communication breakdown—were inconsistent and undermined the credibility of the application. The court held that such inconsistency, coupled with the length of the delay, rendered the explanation unreasonable and unacceptable. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion against the applicants and dismissed the application for extension of time.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 31st October, 2022 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Mulama & another v Viraghi (Civil Application E130 of 2022) [2023] KECA 729 (KLR) (9 June 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KECA 729 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Civil Application E130 of 2022
F Tuiyott, JA
June 9, 2023
Between
Agneta Gazemba Mulama
1st Applicant
George Havi Mulama
2nd Applicant
and
Stephen Saramba Viraghi
Respondent
(Being an Application for extension of time to file an appeal out of time from the Ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Kakamega (N.A. Matheka, J) on 26th September,2019 in Kakamega ELC Case No. 318 of 2017 Environment & Land Case 318 of 2017 )
Ruling
1. Agneta Gazemba Mulama and George Havi Mulama (the Applicants) move this Court under a host of statutory provisions including Rule 4 of the Rules of this Court for extension of time to file and lodge an appeal out of time against the Ruling of Matheka, J dated 26th September, 2019 in Kakamega ELC No. 318 of 2017 Stephen Saramba Viraghi vs. Hilary Savari & 3 others. The application is dated 31st October, 2022.
2. As is clear even from the face of the application, it is brought over 36 months after the date of the decision. How is this long delay explained? The 1st applicant swore an affidavit on 31st October,2022 in which she avers that their advocate Mr. Musiega never notified of them of delivery of the Ruling on 26th September 2019. Further that her effort to get counsel to give reasons and even to get her file have been fruitless. She pleads that she is a desperate Kenyan and pleads to this Court to give her a chance to appeal against the said decision.
3. This explanation is in stark contrast to the reason given on the face of the application which is that the 1st applicant has been unwell due to her advanced age occasioning a communication breakdown between her and her advocate and for that reason could not instruct her advocate in time. This inconsistent explanation by itself renders the reason for the long delay of 36 months unreasonable and unacceptable.
4. That alone is sufficient to dispose of the application before me. The application dated 31st October, 2022 is dismissed with costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023. F. TUIYOTT......................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the originalSignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR.