[2024] KECA 130 (KLR)

[2024] KECA 130 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a reasonable and excusable delay in filing the record of appeal, as the certified proceedings were only availed three days after the expiry of the prescribed period. The delay was not inordinate, and the application for extension was filed promptly thereafter. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KECA 130 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Joseph Wanjala Murere; Respondent: Francis Tindi Nyongesa
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal (Application) E150 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File Record of Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
JM Ngugi
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Court of Appeal Rules, Certificate of Delay, Record of Appeal Filing, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Court of Appeal Rules Certificate of Delay Record of Appeal Filing Judicial 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Wanjala Murere

Appellant

Francis Tindi Nyongesa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time to file and serve the record of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the record of appeal was inordinate or excusable under the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether failure to copy the letter requesting proceedings to the respondent disentitles the applicant from relying on the proviso to Rule 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a reasonable and excusable delay in filing the record of appeal, as the certified proceedings were only availed three days after the expiry of the prescribed period. The delay was not inordinate, and the application for extension was filed promptly thereafter. The only reason the applicant could not rely on the automatic extension under Rule 84 was the failure to copy the respondent in the request for proceedings, which was an oversight by counsel rather than a deliberate omission. There was no opposition from the respondent, and no prejudice was shown. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to allow...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The applicant shall lodge and serve the record of appeal within fourteen (14) days of the ruling.
  • No order as to costs.