[2012] KECA 135 (KLR)

[2012] KECA 135 (KLR)

The court found that although there was a delay in lodging the appeal after the notice of appeal was filed, the delay was not due to any fault or indolence on the part of the respondents. The respondents had made reasonable and documented efforts to obtain the necessary certified copies of proceedings and judgment...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KECA 135 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Navinchandra Bharmal Shah; Respondent: Mukesh Manubhai Patel; Respondent: Vijay Parsooarma Patel; Respondent: Prafulchandraw Chandubyai Patel
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 139 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Notice of Appeal, Delay in Filing Appeal, Record of Appeal, Court Administration Delay
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Notice of Appeal Delay in Filing Appeal Record of Appeal Court Administration Delay

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

Navinchandra Bharmal Shah

Applicant

Mukesh Manubhai Patel

Respondent

Vijay Parsooarma Patel

Respondent

Prafulchandraw Chandubyai Patel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are deemed to have withdrawn the notice of appeal due to failure to lodge the appeal within the prescribed time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the record of appeal is attributable to the respondents or to administrative delays by the court.
  3. 3 Whether the application to strike out the notice of appeal should be allowed in the interests of justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there was a delay in lodging the appeal after the notice of appeal was filed, the delay was not due to any fault or indolence on the part of the respondents. The respondents had made reasonable and documented efforts to obtain the necessary certified copies of proceedings and judgment from the court registry, but the delay was caused by administrative inefficiencies within the court system. The court held that it would be unjust to penalize the respondents for circumstances beyond their control. In the interests of justice and in line with the overriding objectives of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, the application to strike out the notice of appeal was...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to strike out the notice of appeal is disallowed.
  • No order as to costs.