[2023] KECA 1641 (KLR)

[2023] KECA 1641 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a reasonable and plausible explanation for the fifteen-month delay in seeking an extension of time to file the record of appeal. The applicants' conduct was deemed dilatory, as they did not follow up with their advocates or take prompt action upon discovering the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KECA 1641 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Eric Muriuki; Applicant: Ann Kananu Nathan; Applicant: Lucy Kajuju; Applicant: Nicholas Mutembei; Applicant: Sabina Kabee M’birithia; Applicant: Paul Mutai; Applicant: Vincent Maingi; Applicant: Charity Kendi; Applicant: Patrick Muthuri; Respondent: County Public Service Board of Meru; Respondent: Governor of Meru County; Respondent: County Secretary of Meru
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E053 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
AO Muchelule
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Unlawful Termination, Casual Employment Rights
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Employment and Labour Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Unlawful Termination Casual Employment Rights

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Muriuki

Applicant

Ann Kananu Nathan

Applicant

Lucy Kajuju

Applicant

Nicholas Mutembei

Applicant

Sabina Kabee M’birithia

Applicant

Paul Mutai

Applicant

Vincent Maingi

Applicant

Charity Kendi

Applicant

Patrick Muthuri

Applicant

County Public Service Board of Meru

Respondent

Governor of Meru County

Respondent

County Secretary of Meru

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicants provided a reasonable and plausible explanation for the delay in filing the notice and record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in bringing the application for extension of time was inordinate.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants or their advocates were responsible for the failure to file the notice of appeal within the prescribed time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a reasonable and plausible explanation for the fifteen-month delay in seeking an extension of time to file the record of appeal. The applicants' conduct was deemed dilatory, as they did not follow up with their advocates or take prompt action upon discovering the omission. The supporting affidavit lacked evidence of timely efforts to obtain proceedings or a certificate of delay. The court held that the delay was inordinate and the explanations unsatisfactory, and thus the applicants did not merit the exercise of the court's discretion in their favour. Consequently, the application for extension of time was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for extension of time to file the record of appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.